[ home / rules / faq ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / siberia / hobby / tech / edu / games / anime / music / draw / AKM ] [ meta / roulette ] [ cytube / wiki / git ] [ GET / ref / marx / booru / zine ]

/leftypol_archive/ - leftypol archive

Our own National Museum
Name
Options
Subject
Comment
Flag
File
Embed
Password (For file deletion.)

Join our Matrix Chat <=> IRC: #leftypol on Rizon


 No.568382[Last 50 Posts]

>The generated images are looking scarily good, considering how little VRAM it uses.
https://www.pcgamer.com/ai-image-generator-stability-ai-stable-diffusion/

>Stable Diffusion draws controversy on Twitter from artists who say the AI infringes on copyrights

https://www.artificialconversation.com/p/stable-diffusion-draws-controversy

>And that's completely ignoring ethical issues. And that's completely ignoring the fact that Stable Diffusion in particular will allow creation of NSFW images of all imaginable kinds (yes, even the highly deplorable kinds).

>The tools are amazing and, essentially, impossible to stop. But at the same time, imagine being a renowned artist for 20 years and suddenly people can make an infinite amount of images "in the style of [your name here]" that look just like your images. Not exactly a fair thing to happen to you.
>it's relatively simple: image-making, as a profession, is dead. people will keep doing it as a hobby, and for a while or so, there will be people able to judge art, but after that, it will be like clothing today: cheap, and no one cares about the quick and dirty sewing, because it's easier to buy new stuff than to educate yourself and seek out good quality.
https://www.reddit.com/r/StableDiffusion/comments/woej9g/stable_diffusion_draws_controversy_on_twitter/

>A new AI image generator appears to be capable of making art that looks 100% human made. As an artist I am extremely concerned.

https://twitter.com/arvalis/status/1558623545374023680

>What makes this AI different is that it's explicitly trained on current working artists. You can see below that the AI generated image(left) even tried to recreate the artist's logo of the artist it ripped off.

https://twitter.com/arvalis/status/1558623546879778816

>Last night one of the AI developers behind that project that was ripping off living artists’ styles sent me a bunch of DMs(mostly omitted for length). He blocked me immediately after I responded and called me a moralist because I care about artists rights

https://twitter.com/arvalis/status/1559274160831881216

 No.568383

AIs can generate all the art they want. Until they can be creative, they're worthless. An AI can't develop concept thumbnails, it doesn't understand fundamentals, it merely regurgitates existing designs. An AI can't create designs that are designed to be harmonious with a 3D production pipeline.

 No.568384

I remember when they said the same thing about algorithms replacing fiction writers, and then musicians. And yet somehow those fields still exist and are still primarily human driven.

 No.568385

>>568383
>Until they can be creative, they're worthless.
And it's likely to stay that way.
>Media company makes an AI that can be creative.
>AI creates media that conveys sentiments of opinions that clash with that of the company.
>Can't use movies generated by AI in case it contains potent anti-capitalist, pro-piracy, anti-movie theater/streaming service, ect… messages that slip past committee review.

 No.568386

>>568382
nibba that doesn't look like Miyazaki at all are you blind

 No.568387

File: 1660945941610.png (266.4 KB, 592x388, ClipboardImage.png)

>>568386
What are you talking about? Pure Miyazaki. Lol not to mention it looks like it just took a still from Howl's Moving Castle and fucked it up.

 No.568388

File: 1660946070845.png (429.46 KB, 600x600, ClipboardImage.png)

Why would anyone want quantity over quality, especially when it comes to art? As if there wasn't enough media to consume in the world. We now need open the market for botspam media.

 No.568389

This is morally questionable (it will impact me financially)

 No.568390

shalom

 No.568391

I wonder what the legal implications of this AI shit will be. "trained on thousands of pictures." Photo collaging is not legal. Using any snippet of a copyrighted work is copyright infringement.

Maybe it will be too hard to prove, but I imagine that eventually all of these AI art programs are going to have to prove they have the legal rights to all the pictures in their training sets.

 No.568392

>>1126992
Disturbing. Ok boob physics might be complex, but you think they'd be able to make one of these things that could consistently draw iris and pupils as circular instead of a weird smudge.

 No.568393

File: 1660947145076.gif (686.58 KB, 200x200, american psycho card.gif)

>>568382
>And that's completely ignoring ethical issues. And that's completely ignoring the fact that Stable Diffusion in particular will allow creation of NSFW images of all imaginable kinds (yes, even the highly deplorable kinds).

 No.568394

>AI

 No.568395

>putting clickbait bullshit here

 No.568396

>>568393
/ic/ already created fake cp with it

 No.568397

File: 1660947424877.png (2.52 MB, 2356x950, ClipboardImage.png)

>>1127007
gimme some DALL-E prompts. this is trash

 No.568398

>>568396
sorry, kind of shitty reaction pic, but I was more trying to express 'oh my gawd, AI generated porn, what a terrible issue'

 No.568399

>>1126997
Pretty crazy on the recognition factor, but it fucks up basic details like the hand or even keeping the cigar straight and occluded by the fingers.

 No.568400

>>568397
What AI is this?

 No.568401

>>568397
Donald trump eating a massive turd

 No.568402

Welcome to the future, where you will have no job except at the burger factory, and you will be mchappy :^)

 No.568403

>>568402
I've got a job talking to people, I'm safe at least for a while

 No.568404

File: 1660948641232.jpg (55.02 KB, 850x400, pablo picasso.jpg)

>>568383
Massive cope. You think artists create something out of nothing?

 No.568405

>>568402
One of the funniest things about automation is the smug office workers who spend half their time in meetings insisting that the burger flippers and lowly menial workers will be getting automated first. Oh sweetie, no. Hahahaha oh no.

 No.568406

>>568405
Admitting that endless meetings are useless would be a radical divergence for the capitalist class, it essentially would be admitting that their own existence is pointless

https://youtu.be/VRRIBeNXeLU?t=76

 No.568407

>>568397
1. Black Elvis in the style of Caravaggio
2. Giant Jackie Chan conquers Taiwan in the style of Go Nagai
3. Bruce Lee in Evangelion in the style of Van Gogh

 No.568408

File: 1660950566958-0.png (1.14 MB, 1114x1114, ClipboardImage.png)

File: 1660950566958-1.png (1.35 MB, 1114x1114, ClipboardImage.png)

>>568401
no that will get me banned
>>568407
Prompt: Giant Jackie Chan conquers Taiwan in the style of Go Nagai

 No.568409

>>568400
DALL-E 2

 No.568410

File: 1660950777513.jpg (78.58 KB, 698x675, robot painter.jpg)

>>568382
Artists will be employed by text to image generating software makers, to create artistic patterns.
Painting will become much more productive, but painters will also be proletarianized, because this will kill artisanal production, and make it into an alienated wage job.

Software generated sound can already do speech, and once it can also generate other sounds, you will be able to generate a movie from a script. Well maybe you have to do scene sketches and specify a lot more details than can be found in a typical movie script.

The same will also make it a lot easier to make assets for video games too, maybe that will enable more free software games.

If you invert this technology you will be able to achieve crazy good compression for media files.

On the technology side this will be a boon, it means better tools for creative people. The dark side of this development is that capitalism will try to restrict access to this technology, their goal will be to turn free creative expression of any kind into "piracy".

We should be thinking about how to get a free-software version. Equally important will be creating the legal space for people to use it to tell their stories without getting hounded by a gaggle of corporate lawyers. Because this technology also has the potential to liberate media production from the narrow line of commercialism.

 No.568411

>>568407
Prompt: Bruce Lee in Evangelion in the style of Van Gogh

 No.568412

>>568408
what a shame, this was the best I could do on Dalle

 No.568413

>>568408
Kek! Well, it gets the kung fu mood, even though it doesn't look like Jackie… In the third one, the one with the green dragon, it looks like you can see that supertall skyscraper called Taipei 101 or something in the background…

>>568411
Fucking kek! That's definitely Van Gogh and I would say the result is a cross between Gendo or maybe Shinji and an aged Bruce Lee! Also, bonus point for the raised fist in the first one and for the typical Bruce Lee's piercing look in all the images.

>>568412
I only managed to produce a single set of images once on Dall-E. Tried dozen of times, but nothing. It's always too busy.

 No.568414

>>568413
>Black Elvis in the style of Caravaggio

 No.568415

>>568414
KEEEEEEK!!! That's the best set! I would have expected someone more resembling of Elvis facially, but overall the results are amazing. It gets exactly the lighting effect of a Caravaggio painting and the style of clothing of Elvis. Only thing off is that none of the men facially resemble Elvis.
Try this prompt:
"Amanda Lear is sworn in as president of France. In the style of Salvador Dali."

 No.568416

>>568415
I think DALL-E purposefully makes the face generic so you don't make fake images of celebs

 No.568417

>>568383
Have you ever done work for a client? None of the things that make artists (or other skilled specialists) actually good or useful are the things that the suits want from them. The businesses will fall for this shit at least long enough for the artist labor pool to be all fucked up, if they ever stop falling for it. Welcome to a new age of dogshit art that has outmoded actual artists who are actually competent.

 No.568418

>>568417
what are the things that make artists actually good or useful? I have a good friend who is probably a decent artist, but he wastes his time trying to get Instagram followers with uninspired fanart and lives in his parent's basement at 27. he's convinced creating art with mass appeal is the only way to survive.

 No.568419

>>568416
Fair point. I saw many images where the face is completely screwed up, but many others, even if not very realistic, are still quite recognizable. They said they've put restrictions lately so it could be that.

 No.568420

>>568418
Guy should have taken the furry commission pill

 No.568421

>>568417
Its really impressive, the range of things that capitalism turns to shit

 No.568422

>>568383
>Regurgitates existing designs
>Doesn't understand fundamentals
Your post is vague enough that its hard to argue with, but if you look at the activation patterns in hidden layers of a neural network, you will see something that resembles fundamentals. If we assume this is a GAN that uses random inputs and under-parametrised models, then it can absolutely create novel images not seen in the data.

You're right that there is a wide scope of things it can't do in industry, but that's a far shot away from saying they're useless. Low hanging fruit jobs in design will be automated like social media content designer.

 No.568423

File: 1660953996525.jpg (114.21 KB, 620x798, computer-club-cover.jpg)

if i were smarter i would use an AI to create an album cover, and then an AI to generate music, then deep fake my face onto some guy who can dace real good

 No.568424

>>1127117
once someone makes one of these that can generate porn its over for erotic artistcels

 No.568425

File: 1660956075994.png (557.78 KB, 600x607, ClipboardImage.png)

>>1127117
it begins

 No.568426

CAN IT DO SOCIALIST REALISM?

 No.568427

>>1127117
But can it render women?

 No.568428

>>568418
>what are the things that make artists actually good or useful?
Lots of things, but off the top of my head:
<their "eye" for what's going on in terms of composition, narrative, mood, etc
<the ability to translate an impression of something instead of just copying the appearance
<the intent to imprint a personal touch that lends texture and verisimilitude
<ability to understand and apply critique or requests in as much detail as language allows

>I have a good friend who is probably a decent artist, but he wastes his time trying to get Instagram followers with uninspired fanart

What >>568420 said, if you want to make money you gotta go where the money is. If you want to make great art, don't chase money but make whatever compels you. You might eventually hit it big with the Real Art, but until then you can support yourself on porn or something. Didn't some famous mangaka do that?

 No.568429

>>568387
<and fucked it up
The AI paints like Hitler

 No.568430

>>1126997
>>1127000
Fuck off, zionist pig

 No.568431

Capitalism is already an AI.
Art has been taken hostage by AI for decades now. As such AI (computer) art will be indistinguishable from AI (capitalism) art because both are made by algorithm

 No.568432

Congress for cultural freedom

 No.568433

>>568429
i kek'd

 No.568434

>>568431
>Capitalism is already an AI.
Yep. Everyone concerned about AI is busy looking out for something Hollywood style and sapient, but the horrors of the paperclip optimizer don't actually require that. Our own systems baked into capitalism might be able to do the job just fine on their own. Instead of smart 1s and 0s it's policies, human nature, relationships, and automatic but not necessarily smart 1s and 0s. Capitalism is an economy self-optimizing to capitalist ends and it pulls in everything else with it including the political economy. It even pulls in religion like with the Pope's inclusive capitalism project.

 No.568435

>>568434
Humanity is already Evolution Mk 2.0.
Where natural selection takes millions of years and massive tragic events to shift designs, and struggles to remove minor problems in one way or another, humanity is already driven to replicate the process in many ways while being more capable in some other ways, showing off more precise and timely improvements that require far less generations of development.
Capitalism is one stage of this process.The real ultimate development is our own abolishment by/integration into our machines as they take over.

 No.568436

Artist here, we dont give a shit

 No.568437

the photograph freed painters from the burden of representation. artist will find something else when freed from abstraction/impressionism/ect.

 No.568438

File: 1661035815784.png (1.08 MB, 1200x630, ClipboardImage.png)

>>568414
Big Krit album cover energy

 No.568439

>>568431
It's not an AI, it's a proto-hivemind.

 No.568440

File: 1661036899885.png (Spoiler Image, 1.18 MB, 758x816, unknown-34.png)

I for one welcome the improvements in the Omnissiah's artistic kinky capabilities

 No.568441

>>568440
I didn't even need to open the spoiler to know it was furshit.
Why are you guys like this?

 No.568442

>>568429
Love the window that's fucked up by the stairs. Did he really paint the house, waited for it to dry, and then painted the stairs, because otherwise he designed it that way judging by the sharp divide, dunno which one is worse.

 No.568443

>>568441
It is high time to accept that we'll never get rid of furfags

 No.568444

>>568415
Caravaggio if he had a traumatic brain injury, more like. What is this gonzo advertising for a improvement on DALL-E?

 No.568445

File: 1661120025754-0.png (486.21 KB, 700x525, ClipboardImage.png)

File: 1661120025755-1.png (717.89 KB, 700x901, ClipboardImage.png)

File: 1661120025755-2.png (695.35 KB, 605x962, ClipboardImage.png)

File: 1661120025755-3.png (960.96 KB, 700x967, ClipboardImage.png)

>>568442
>architecture in AI generated art is bad
<meanwhile, human architecture in real life

 No.568446

>>568445
>he thinks art is an accurate representation of the real world

 No.568447

>>568382
Can't these AIs only sample from images that already exist? It can't actually make anything new.

 No.568448

no one tell >>>/draw/

 No.568449

File: 1661277531915-0.png (486.77 KB, 512x512, download (5).png)

File: 1661277531915-1.png (409.96 KB, 512x512, out-0.png)

File: 1661277531915-2.png (440.68 KB, 512x512, out-0 (1).png)

(first pic "dollfie" prompt on hugging face, other 2 pics getting sort lucky with "dollfie dream" on replicate.com… the ai struggles to replicate the dolls that are made by volks very consistently. often weird western features get added in. i ran out of free allotted time on replicate.com, otherwise i would have continued experimenting with other prompts e.g. "anime doll" -_-)

honestly, if gary marcus is right in his critiques of ai, it will still be difficult to get ai to work on certain prompts because it lacks a proper concept of compositionality. we an see more here:
>https://twitter.com/GaryMarcus/status/1562119054365564931?cxt=HHwWhoChxZzA4a0rAAAA
>https://garymarcus.substack.com/p/three-ideas-from-linguistics-that?utm_source=%2Fprofile%2F14807526-gary-marcus&utm_medium=reader2
i think that partly thanks to this, there are some artists whose work this ai is unable to emulate. an example of this is kim jung gi. this is because his work often involves complex scenes of multiple objects interacting with one another in 3d space… of course, if gary marcus is correct, then neuro-symbolic ai might solve these listed issues and really bone artists… perhaps…

i of course have my own schizo theories regarding ai, so i am not sure if even neurosymbolic techniques will be enough. the thing about ai is that it is largely interpolative. neurosymbolic ai might help with his problem so that ai can be more general, but it is unable to deal with details that language can't quite grasp. this includes subtle artistic decisions that are analog in nature (such as line quality, shape, and colour balance). i think this anon >>568428 brings up interesting skills as well that might deserve mulling over… things like impressions and composition involve gestalt perception which might be debatable how well ai is at dealing with. composition (in so far as it involves multiple objects in spatial relations to each other) requires linguistic compositionally as well

in one of the threads on /ic/ about the ai doomerism stuff, i saw someone make good use of the ai to generate a background for an example visual novel setting (here: https://boards.4chan.org/ic/thread/6221878/peg-prompt-engineering-general#p6224147). perhaps this sort of technology can help artists in cases where there are aspects of the work they do not want to put too much effort in and furthermore where they do not feel like they do not need to put much of a personal touch into…

idk i feel like there might be an interesting upcoming art movement that is centred around the sort of art current ai techniques are unable to have success replicating (much like how stuff like cubism came out of the photograph). if this is true, it would be rather exciting

>>568405
unironically moravec's paradox should imply that stuff that requires our sensory-motor capabilities in a robust and precise fashion should be automated slower than meager managerial stuff. that is the true insidiousness behind musk's ai thing. it is acting as though it is the work that probably requires common sense knowledge is a "first step"… this is not to say that some manual jobs can't be automated, but they rely on us controlling the noise in the environment significantly in order to work. this has always been the case. i can't stop shilling luciano floridi regarding such matters

>>568431
haz made this take lol:
https://twitter.com/InfraHaz/status/1561110990011465734

 No.568450

File: 1661341655760.png (185.24 KB, 256x256, ClipboardImage.png)

>>568412
yum yum

 No.568451

File: 1661487911753-0.png (Spoiler Image, 344.45 KB, 512x512, 000023.3783280633.png)

File: 1661487911753-1.png (Spoiler Image, 428.69 KB, 512x512, 000024.1082099390.png)

File: 1661487911753-2.png (Spoiler Image, 373.32 KB, 512x512, 000035.654714140.02.png)

File: 1661487911753-3.png (Spoiler Image, 411.8 KB, 512x512, 000035.654714140.01.png)

it makes cool propaganda

 No.568452


 No.568453

File: 1661490854299.jpg (278.05 KB, 2364x1405, Camera-Obscura.jpg)

>>568437
>>568436
>the photograph freed painters from the burden of representation. artist will find something else when freed from abstraction/impressionism/ect.

>Artist here, we dont give a shit


agreed. image-making has been gradually automated since like, the camera obscura.

 No.568454

>>568405
>office workers who spend half their time in meetings insisting that the burger flippers and lowly menial workers will be getting automated first

I have worked at an office job for 10 years making less than 40k/yr. I don't think once in my 10 years here have I ever heard someone outside of a corporate leadership role say something negative about the working class.

 No.568455

>>568384
Yeah it's because these AI still only manage to imitate superficial fundamental qualities without having an underlying "understanding" of these qualities, why they work, or how to integrate them with similar qualities, and string them together. Also simply imitating the "style" of an existing database of images, while being unable to create specific requests with accuracy like "paint me a Gungan sith lord in the style of hiyao miyazaki at a 3/4 angle standing center left stage at a medium distance from the camera in a thickly wooded swampy area on Dagoba while holding a double-bladed red light saber and a fallen CIS droid opponent lays before him, stretched out, on the ground with a missing arm and a speech bubble that says 'initiating self destruct'."

Until the AI can replicate the specificity of a human request with repeatable consistency and an abstract "Understanding" of waht the human wants and why, then it cannot really replace artists, it can only supplement them. Artists panicking about this are retards and non-artists gloating about this are also retards.

 No.568456

>>568404
> You think create something out of nothing?
Obviously not, but there is an extent to which they are able to think abstractly in a higher order way and understand *why* and *how* a certain aesthetic or technique or is effective for a certain goal whereas the AI is only able to imitate *who*, and *what* without any real understanding of *why* or *how*. There are also weird inconsistencies, artifacts, glitches, and bizarre elements not requested by the end user, and a lack of precise control over the end product that would be easily overcome by a commission. Real "danger" to artistic work is still 10-20 years down the line imo and the AI will supplement the artists and decrease their pay rather than unemploying them entirely.

 No.568457

>>568455
So basically it's a more intelligent brush ?

 No.568458

>>568452
it for some reason hilariously bad with guns

 No.568459

File: 1661497506089-0.png (21.43 MB, 3500x4204, ClipboardImage.png)

File: 1661497506089-1.png (1.04 MB, 1024x994, ClipboardImage.png)

>>568456
>>568455
Agree kind of. So far this AI stuff looks pretty useless IMO. Maybe it will be useful for the kind of people that just want some generic stock art( but then again they could just buy generic stock art from a marketplace like they already do.) An AI will never understand the intricacies of what makes a work of art appeal to this person or that person. Hell even most artists don't understand it. Even if you're talking about replicating a generic style like Anime. There are 100,000s of thousands of artists making generic anime art, but only a small fraction of them have a large fanbase. Even people who are technically good, there art just doesn't resonate with people for whatever reason. People sometimes call it voice, but an AI can never have that. The artist makes the art and gets the same feeling it's meant to give to other viewers, themself as they make it. They are both the human consumer and human creator so they know when the work lands for them as the consumer. An AI has no actual interest in the work it creates so it can't have a subjective opinion.

As far as all the AI art generators that exist today. All the ones I've seen so far are completely 2D based with no actual understanding of 3D or objects and what they're supposed to be and where or where they aren't attached to each other. Until they have an AI art generator that can make a complete 3D model from 2D image, they way an artist creates it in their mind, and then use that to create new angles, poses, remove this object, move that object etc. It's useless.

 No.568460

File: 1661500422877-0.png (455.9 KB, 512x512, ClipboardImage.png)

File: 1661500422877-1.png (428.67 KB, 512x512, ClipboardImage.png)

File: 1661500422877-2.png (412.12 KB, 512x512, ClipboardImage.png)

File: 1661500422877-3.png (396.87 KB, 512x512, ClipboardImage.png)

File: 1661500422877-4.png (419.99 KB, 512x512, ClipboardImage.png)

It's very fun. I see this being developed into a tool for working artists shortly. For example you can turn a sketch + prompt into a detailed output. It's just a matter of establishing a workflow and tools at this point.

 No.568461

can it make Soviet propaganda posters?

 No.568462

It's an infinite offline coom generator. Is it over?

 No.568463

>>568391
its trained on free/public domain images

 No.568464

>>568382
This AI doesn't make art, it just combines art it found online made by humans.

 No.568465

>>568464
thats what humans do

you think poltards invented swastika or dick shapes that they draw ? no

 No.568466

>>568462
Its based on human art so you need a input.

 No.568467

>>568458
Stalin passes you the AK pipe, do you accept?

 No.568468

File: 1661666246533.png (519.95 KB, 1280x720, popuko.png)

>>568383
This is correct. But it will get backlash from people who watch too much sci-fi and want Data from Star Trek to be real.

Reminder:
AI is incapable of conceptual thought.
AI is incapable of abstract thought.
AI is incapable of intentional creativity of any kind.

All of this shit is just pattern recognition and reproduction. And the AI only achieved this largely though brute force methods with the availability of the internet as an aid.

 No.568469

File: 1661666765607.png (961.61 KB, 772x829, ClipboardImage.png)

>>1141133
>calling it Dall Eyyyy
>doesn't get either reference
bruh

 No.568470

File: 1661667931024.png (807.47 KB, 762x833, mwhaha the pizza hut.png)


 No.568471

>>568468
All you are is pattern recognition. The mistake people make is not overrating AI but overrating cognition. It’s not that special. Everything thinks, from the worm up. Everything has ideas. People used to think the thing that separated is from the animals was tools. You never hear that now, because it turns out fucking everything can invent and use tools and we just arrogantly assumed they couldn’t. There’s a kind of God of the Gaps when it comes to human specialness, like the brain isn’t literally a neural net and like it literally can’t be emulated by artificial neurons.

Nobody can stop the future that’s coming. Generations from now, people will easily accept that machines can be fashioned into a kind of mind. They won’t understand our confusion about them, just as we don’t as moderns understand the way medieval man related to the world around him, to God, and to the animal kingdom.

 No.568472

Finally. Art will belong to the masses as well. No more "uh so special people with graceful talent"

 No.568473

>>568460
can you do this in dreamstudioAI?

 No.568474

File: 1661677917288.png (943.2 KB, 704x704, black elvis.png)


 No.568475

>>568472
>finally art will belong to the masses
The overwhelming majority of people can affort a pencil and piece of paper, however, a computer poweful enough to run an ai generator, not so much

 No.568476

>>568471
>All you are is pattern recognition.
Higher organisms are more than a series of matrix multiplication. AI cannot reflect on its own thoughts on a meta level.

>Everything thinks, from the worm up. Everything has ideas

This is the most braindead, uneducated, unscientific thing ever. Lower organisms do not have cognitive functions, they do act more like AI, input -> predetermined pattern trigger -> evolutionary behaviour response

 No.568477

>>568476
Most forms of neural networks in development represent organic neurons much more accurately. There’s nothing special going on your brain. It’s just neurons firing. We can simulate neurons. We can simulate the brain.

 No.568478

>>568477
And amusingly noticing that “lower organisms” act like AI is a pretty good reason we can be confident we have figured out how to simulate neurons. The braindead and ignorant view is to think that humans represent some schism from the rest of life on planet Earth. They don’t. There’s no black monolith.

 No.568479

>>568471
>The mistake people make is not overrating AI but overrating cognition
this tbh

>>568476
>Higher organisms are more than a series of matrix multiplication
not really, in the sense that if thats what the brain is ultimately doing, the way it does it doesnt matter. Sure the analog and organic nature of things might have some impact, but if I can recreate a dumb robot that you can't differentiate from a human in its behavior, then a human is also a dumb robot.

>input -> predetermined pattern trigger -> evolutionary behaviour response

the fact you think human cognition is somehow above that is funny. a mind is ultimately just a tool created by evolution to adapt behavior to environment. ours has a lot of complexity, but isnt fundamentally different

 No.568480

>>568462
absolutely cant wait to have the possibility to describe my perfect fetish scenes and then the AI literally generate the 4k porn movie.
also imagine how it unlocks the creativity of everyone by removing the technical skill limitations.

 No.568481

>>568475

the generator doesn't need that much power run. training a new generator is out of reach for most though

 No.568482

File: 1661717666260.gif (226.54 KB, 220x132, woah.gif)

>>1141133
This is spooky

 No.568483

File: 1661766522845.jpg (27.46 KB, 275x275, lemon.jpg)

>>568471
>All you are is pattern recognition. The mistake people make is not overrating AI but overrating cognition.
No. The organic mind operates in a way that is fundamentally different from computers. The brain is *NOT* an "organic computer", that's the critical mistake. It isn't fully understood how the organic brain functions, but it's more than just pattern recognition, this is just a cope to make AI, which is only able to "learn" through pattern recognition (and even then a very brute force kind of pattern recognition) seem more equivalent to the organic mind.

Admittedly, the media talks up how advanced AI is to intentionally try to make it sound sci-fi. "AI independently learns how to solve puzzles in simulation!", leaving out the fact that it only "learned" how to walk after a literal billion trials and largely because it had exhausted literally every wrong answer to the puzzle. Because, at the end of the day, it's just a big calculator and it's just solving math problems and modifying a list. It has no actual concept of the puzzle itself and isn't even intentionally trying to solve it.

Further example, take those AI that are trained to talk to people and can almost seem lifelike. Well, like many people have done, say something completely off the cuff to it like "a comet hit my house yesterday, it really scared the baboon." Its response will be a completely random statement. Why? Because, unlike the organic mind, which would form the concept of a space rock falling from the sky, hitting a building and a primate being frightened and might note that this is something highly unusual, the AI just checks a list of conversations it's had before and, when it finds it hasn't had this conversation before, it tries to find the "closest" thing to it which will ultimately be some random fucking number which will produce a random response. Because AI don't possess conceptual thinking, unlike organic brains.

Could AI ever become sentient? Maybe. But it wouldn't be AI run by the computers we have now. The computers we're using now are just big fancy calculators. They will NEVER be genuinely creative, they will NEVER have conceptual thought, they will NEVER have abstract thought and they will NEVER be genuinely sapient. They will only ever mimic sapience, that's as far as they can go. A sentient machine would have to be a completely new kind of machine.

 No.568484

>>568483
lol cope idealist humanist

 No.568485

>>568483
>The organic mind operates in a way that is fundamentally different from computers
thats just wrong. a mechanical, biological and electronic computer use very different underlying principles, but they do the same thing in the end

>It isn't fully understood how the organic brain functions

then stop talking like you have any idea how it does ? its pretty well understood on many fronts, yet we still not sure about consciousness and shit like that. But what is sure is for the most part it is just biological computing with neural networks

>but it's more than just pattern recognition

you just talking out of your ass.

>leaving out the fact that it only "learned" how to walk after a literal billion trials and largely because it had exhausted literally every wrong answer to the puzzle

guess the billions of years to evolve our brain doesnt count as pre training ? and again, you're just wrong, its not how it work, you don't "exhaust every answer", thats not what reinforcement learning or the go playing Ai does

>It has no actual concept of the puzzle itself and isn't even intentionally trying to solve it.

thats not the question though. Also, what s "intention" ? if the ai get rewarded for trying to solve it, how is that different from how our own mind reward us ?

>Because, at the end of the day, it's just a big calculator and it's just solving math problems and modifying a list

but you are much more complex; you have soul or something ?

>Because AI don't possess conceptual thinking, unlike organic brains.

ts funny you think it fundamentally different. protip bro, its just another layer of complexity on top. we know ai can acquire higher concepts (like top level strategy in a game) through learning, and that exactly the kind of shit evolution give to us mostly pre trained

>The computers we're using now are just big fancy calculators

but as there is not much more to cognition than calculus and memory, its fine

>They will NEVER be genuinely creative, they will NEVER have conceptual thought, they will NEVER have abstract thought and they will NEVER be genuinely sapient

coping hard to believe in your soul i see

 No.568486

>artfags itt talking about their creativity
Massive cope. Drawing one anthropomorphic fox voring another anthropomorphic fox is not “creative”. It’s a silly and derivative image which machines will soon be able to create as well as you do. What’s more is the machine will create it instantly, and probably fr. This way consoomers don’t have to deal with bitchy and temperamental artists who take forever to finish a commission

 No.568487

>>568383
yeah this. >>568384 These AIs can only create derivative works they have no human creativity

 No.568488

>>568483
This.
Your brain is NOT a computer.

>Worse still, even if we had the ability to take a snapshot of all of the brain’s 86 billion neurons and then to simulate the state of those neurons in a computer, that vast pattern would mean nothing outside the body of the brain that produced it. This is perhaps the most egregious way in which the IP metaphor has distorted our thinking about human functioning. Whereas computers do store exact copies of data – copies that can persist unchanged for long periods of time, even if the power has been turned off – the brain maintains our intellect only as long as it remains alive. There is no on-off switch. Either the brain keeps functioning, or we disappear. What’s more, as the neurobiologist Steven Rose pointed out in The Future of the Brain (2005), a snapshot of the brain’s current state might also be meaningless unless we knew the entire life history of that brain’s owner – perhaps even about the social context in which he or she was raised.


>When a computer recalls the data of an image, it reads a string of code that allows it to replicate the image exactly. It literally has instructions that tell it where every single pixel goes (which is also demonstrated in the way that a computer renders an image, going from one end to another) A human meanwhile, recalls the image as a series of impressions, that are themselves only rendered meaningful by the person's experiences. As the picture shows, it's recalled as a series of shapes, phrases, and other images: The bill is rectangular, it has a number on every corner (it's a one dollar bill so the number is one), it has a picture of George Washington in the middle (he has a wig - the picture is framed in a circle). There are words on both sides of the picture. The bill says "one dollar". There's probably a "In god we trust" somewhere (because that's what dollar bills say). Those two ways of recalling an image are drastically different and completely incompatible with each other. A computer would be unable to recognise what a circle was, let alone that it should be in the middle. It only reads instructions and writes them out.


>We do remember things, but we don't "store" memories the way that computers do, and describing our memories

in computer terms is inaccurate, since the reality is far more complex than "we have an HDD in our brains". Saying that we "store" memories is inaccurate, because we aren't "storing" them anywhere. Our brains are being changed all the time based on our experiences, and the way those experiences affect us both at the time and in the way they change our brain is different depending on how the brain is configured, which again changes all the time. The fact is that no one really knows how the brain works, and it's gonna take us a long fucking time to find out.

 No.568489

>>568488
>Your brain is NOT a computer.
But isn't the point of these "deep learning" AI that that they are too, an enormous blob of associations that generate the content? Sure they are already "trained" but I'm sure at some point there will be consumer versions that run quick and dynamically learn.

Then what? Is creativity only valid when the inputs and the outputs are human-like? It's a matter of tie until AI can do that too.

IDK I feel like AI may be so far from anything of the sort that preemptively playing "humanity of the gaps" is unnecessary.

 No.568490

>>568488
lol reading that argumentation I think its pretty fcuking bad.

>even if we had the ability to take a snapshot of all of the brain’s 86 billion neurons and then to simulate the state of those neurons in a computer, that vast pattern would mean nothing outside the body of the brain that produced it

why ? how ? on the contrary, for me you just cloned that person mind. and unverifiable anyway, what a shit argument

>It literally has instructions that tell it where every single pixel goes (which is also demonstrated in the way that a computer renders an image, going from one end to another

thats just a memory format though… you can perfectly do a memory by analogy, extracting relevant features. Actually thats exactly what basic image recognition software does…

>Saying that we "store" memories is inaccurate, because we aren't "storing" them anywhere.

yes we do, just because it isnt a storage comparable to computer doesnt mean it doesnt fulfill a similar function


honestly the more I hear you guys argue the more you convince me that indeed, our brain are computers

>>568489
they just cope cause they wanna have a soul

 No.568491

>>568490
>>568489

Computers are closed systems made of modular components and they require a programmer to function, they need a programming language inserted into their memory to work. Humans can derive their own languages AND they do not need programmers. Humans can develop independent of direct programming and plenty of people seem to pick up most basic skills by osmosis. Humans are not programmable, you
can condition them to a degree, but they are not programmable. You cannot command a human to do a specific thing over and over without fail. There is no off switch, there is no reboot switch either. Its not a machine, no matter how autistic you want to be about it. The electro-magnetics and electro-chemistry aside it is a living, open system that is interacting with its environment and its own genes. Our "brain" isn't a computer its a biological organ. Computers are dead pieces of hardware. Can a computer restructure itself? No. Can a computer contemplate? No. Can a computer be creative? No, it can only watch billions of images ("listen" to notes) made by "creative" people and mimic them. It has to be commanded to do these things.

A human brain, on the other hand does not do computations it's a channel for stimuli and it orchestrates dynamic consciousness. Its not a computer. It doesn't compute results and there is no machine code, or information matrix where decisions are made. Its all physical and its all organic, it has no prime directives and it can restructure itself at will. An organic neural network uses backpropagation in a way that artificial networks do not. Organic neural networks are self-aware, they are also capable of reflecting on past
behaviors and synthesizing other systems behaviors with their own. The term "training" does not apply to artificial neural networks, nothing is being trained. A series of outputs are overpowering a series of inputs
and the system is inevitably "learning" a new behavior, because the signals associated with the desired output overpower the one's assoicated with the desired input. Humans don't learn like that at all. We're not input-output mechanisms. We create new information through feedback loops in our nervous system and cellular activity. And our brain physically changes, We have a constant reflecting dynamic of nervous activity in our microbiomes, in our cell membranes, in our cell nuclei, in our brains, in our electro-magnetic fields and in our genetic environments. We cannot be machines, as machines only deal with input-ouput patterns from a programmer, that programmer can either be a human or the environment or
the machine itself, but it isn't an open system. Its learning is locked by its programming and by its hardware. There are no super mega ultra, dynamic thinking machines which learn farsi from a signle word and then transform into spaceships and can calculate the density of every star in the universe and can simulate all the human brains in the world.
Computers don't "think", DNA isn't "software" these are euphemisms, explanatory terms. They aren't literal descriptors of what is happening mechanically at all. You people are being tricked by the tech industry and by politicized science. There is no "translation" information terms do not belong in biology and mechanical terms do not either. Biology is all about self-organizing systems. Information technology is about programmable closed-systems.

 No.568492

>>1141133
This is fake. They made this as a bit. People ate it up.

 No.568493

File: 1661922768178.png (81.17 KB, 760x265, ClipboardImage.png)

ofc this is the first thing 4channelers do with this technology (found on /v/)

 No.568494


 No.568495

>>568485
>>568489
>>568490

u are just supposed to take the capitalists money for the grift not actually buy into this elon musk bullshit

 No.568496

There is something evil about this. The internet is an evil, alienating force derived according to market logic, etc
AI, with its ability to form new images out of its existing satanic (metaphorically) input, is able to create a representational output of a demonic (metaphorically) process. I dont fear skynet or whatever. It's just some new horrifying postmodern bullshit.

I feel like how a medieval peasant would respond if they suddenly saw a train barreling towards them. Consign it to hell. A healthy society doesnt need this.

 No.568497

>>568382
Doesnt AI rely on preexisting data?
How can it be AI if it only does that?

Also, theres digital art, and 3D rendering, both of which use computers.

>>568496
People said the same thing about television and radio amd.newspapers. Whats really scary is imagination.

>>568493
Thats a classical 4chan move. And yet people still think imageboards are safer than Reddit amd Twitter?

 No.568498

>>568382
I'll care about AI art when it gains the ability to make me horny.

 No.568499

>>568496
In North Korea they solved this problem by only allowing a tighly-controlled intranet and virtually no one owns a personal computer.

 No.568500

>>568496
>There is something evil about this. The internet is an evil.
Technology isn't evil, the problem is class society.
If a small cabal of bourgeois rulers controls the technology, and uses it to oppress the masses, the outcome will be destructive.
If the masses of workers can control technology, and use it to liberate them self, the outcome will be beneficial.
>>568497
>Doesnt AI rely on preexisting data?
Sure but so do people, your brain can't create new information from nothing either.
Capitalists aren't really investing enough into technology to create sweeping changes.
>>1146283
>In North Korea
The DPRK probably would give everybody a personal computer if they had the ability to do that, they probably plan on doing that in the future.
>a highly-controlled intranet
The socialist strategy for the internet should not be to restrict workers, just the influence of capitalists should be reduced. Preferably by making clever technical design choices, that put the workers at an advantage and capitalists at a disadvantage.

 No.568501

>artists will fight automation sooner than fighting capitalism
Mao was right about “intellectuals” and “creatives”
China will rule AI development and the future of labor if these charlatans get any say in the western lawmaking process

 No.568502

>>1141150
This is the correct take. Nothing we can do under capitalism about it but damn. Obviously high art will still exist, just like novels still exist but stupidass "internet news" are written by bots.

 No.568503

>>1141150
I mean every time I use Dall-E I get nothing out of it.

 No.568504

>>568500
>The socialist strategy for the internet should not be to restrict workers, just the influence of capitalists should be reduced. Preferably by making clever technical design choices, that put the workers at an advantage and capitalists at a disadvantage.
Even under socialism the workers must be restricted to ensure order. North Korea is the only socialist state left standing which was achieved by a benevolent militarized socialist dictatorship. History has taught us socialism (i.e. job guarantee, no housing market, no private business) can only be achieved and maintained through strength and ruthlessness, and that may include culling traitors in the so-called working class every once in a while.

 No.568505

Tbh looking at some of the images which have come out of this, I think it actually has huge liberatory potential, though of course capitalism will inhibit this. If this technology continues to develop and become more sophisticated, I think it has real potential to offer an unprecedented democratization of high quality visual art. What we essentially have here is the automation of the technical component of artistic creation, but obviously great art comes just as much from the themes, sentiments, vision, etc which a technically proficient painter would seek to communicate. If art is simply a medium for expressing various aspects of the human condition, then this kind of technology could make it possible for anybody to partake in it on a level technical playing field.

 No.568506

Getting mad at this is like getting mad when cameras were invented.

 No.568507

>>568506
This. And the inverse holds true as well. Going oogabooga this will kill illustration is equally uniformed and somehow even sadder.

 No.568508

>>568506
i will die mad about that

 No.568509

>>568484
>Pointing out that brains and computers are fundamentally different things
>Idealist

 No.568510

>>1126992
>There's a command to generate an image from a shitty sketch.
how to do this

 No.568511

Not afraid at all.
I've just tried that porn generator AI.
I checked the tags "Scandinavian, Milf, Glasses, Blonde".
Got a 20 year old Hispanic girl with red hair.

 No.568512

File: 1662677017496-0.png (817.62 KB, 1408x644, ClipboardImage.png)

File: 1662677017496-1.png (631 KB, 1426x660, ClipboardImage.png)

Right wing robotics…

 No.568513

Is it over for anime illustrators?

The next step could be generation of 3-D models from 2-D pictures, so even if this stuff were good enough for regular flat illustrations there's still options for humans, until the perhaps inevitable catch up. Photography didn't fully obsolete painters, after all.

 No.568514

This should be seen as liberating but it doesn't because either you work or you starve under capitalism. Love it!

 No.568515

>>1126992
link to ai please.

 No.568516

>>568513
>The next step could be generation of 3-D models from 2-D pictures
already starting.

 No.568517

>>568497
>Doesnt AI rely on preexisting data?
>How can it be AI if it only does that?
Artists are also influence by other artists or by things they see.

 No.568518

>>568497
>Doesnt AI rely on preexisting data?
>How can it be AI if it only does that?
More modern AI go closer to understanding traits or "dimensions" as it's referred to now. If you tell an AI to make a "blue banana" it picks up that "blue" is a reference to some volume in a color sphere/cube/etc, and that a banana is an object that has such and such shape, comes in groups (reference: "bunch"), tends to be yellow and brown and sometimes green. Then it overwrites the yellow color trait with the blue trait by changing the value of certain dimensional axes and there you go.

 No.568519

How do I become one of these AIs I wanna make my own porn in mere seconds too but the machines are hoarding it all for themselves it's not right bros

 No.568520

>>568393
Sounds glorious.

 No.568521

>>568497
>Doesnt AI rely on preexisting data?
>How can it be AI if it only does that?
Because everyone has fallen for marketing.

 No.568522

could this be used for mass generation of communist propaganda?

 No.568523

Artists should learn to code and make video games unironically. AI won't be making video games anytime soon.

 No.568524

>>568513
>>568516
But this is already a thing. I forgot what the exact field is called, but it's something like 3D photography. A photographer is hired to take pictures of an object at all angles. From those pictures a 3D model is made.

 No.568525

File: 1664203131458.png (259.73 KB, 474x355, ClipboardImage.png)

Let's say that the kinks get ironed to the point the naked senses cannot tell AI generated imagery/sound from reality.

>Should such an AI be illegal for perusing the likeness of a person without their consent, even if it's never used to impersonate or otherwise break the law with?


>If the AI can parse child-like characteristics and produce CP in an analogous way, should the AI be illegal? Should the type of AI or the algorithms used illegal?


>If an AI can produce CP without ever being trained on CP is it a truly victimless crime then? Should it even be a crime? Who would be the perpetrator/s? The user? The developer? The hosting? others?


>If I use an AR device with the help of an AI that infers a plausible and realistic version of your nude form, to overlay it on your person in real time… Am I violating your privacy? What if it's really accurate to your actual naked body?

 No.568526

We will get so much subtly off and inhuman commercial artwork over the next years. Just mildly uncomfortable and a tiny bit alienating. Sureal in the sedated fever dream way, where you don't have enough fingers and you can't wake up.

 No.568527

Tbh I'd support giving AI art the human cloning treatment and banning it globally as unethical. Obviously it would be hard to enforce, but pushing it underground would be a good step.

 No.568528

>>568525
Obviously all of those should be legal

 No.568529

>>568469
>alien female PMC ghost drains the life out of working class drone

Woah

 No.568530

File: 1664209567839.png (328.78 KB, 510x489, ClipboardImage.png)

Cosmic orthodox armada. AI draws this shit really well

 No.568531

>>568530
I don't see an armada.

 No.568532

File: 1664247241352.png (258.11 KB, 474x474, ClipboardImage.png)

>>568527
>pushing it underground would be a good step.
You know what? You are right! It's tech-heresy of the highest degree!

Just call it "Machine Spirit" and be done with it. It works because we pray to it and slather it in oils and honor it with ritual, not because it is intelligent!

When in doubt, add organic components to the machine or machine components to the organic and there you go, problem solved, no longer AI.

 No.568533

>artists panic
are these "artists" in the room with us right now?

 No.568534

are they really trying to get ai art banned? I would this this is a path towards being post scarcity

 No.568535

>>568533
whenever im jacking off half the porn artists i follow are tweeting their whining about "ai art"

 No.568536

>>568532
But I am already saved?

 No.568537

>>568477
>represent organic neurons much more accurately
they don't and they never were intended to. the initial idea of the perceptron was inspired by times understanding of neurons etc. the proposal for the perceptron was put forward in the 60s. they did some research and experimantation, were able to implement some arithmetic using perceptrons. then everbody lost interest in it. because its computationally inefficient and expensive.
what we do now in ML/AI is throwing shit tons of raw computational power at problems in the hope a given system is able to find approximated functions f(x) => y, given a training set of inputs x and expected outputs y.
then we hope the system was able to approximate a generalized function which will be able to compute proper outputs based on formerly unseen inputs.

 No.568538

>>568537
>then we hope the system was able to approximate a generalized function which will be able to compute proper outputs based on formerly unseen inputs.
Does better than naive expectations to the approach strangely

Something about there being a nice steady gradient to the optimum maybe?

 No.568539

File: 1665226320036.png (63.07 KB, 256x256, ClipboardImage.png)

>>568535
lole
Petty bourgoids are always terrified of being made obsolete, because unlike workers, their contributions are replaceable.
Just as the Brezhnevite bureaucrats were scared shitless of OGAS, so too will commodified "artists" fear the progress of AI.
It's actually a much older phenomenon, with the guild craftsmen of the 19th century forming the Luddite movement to protest the loss of their privileged status to more efficient factories.

 No.568540

>>568539
Based retard

 No.568541

>>568539
and before that they burned guy who said earth is round

 No.568542

File: 1665228649342-0.png (838.43 KB, 832x448, FeaxvDsXgAISE7Z.png)

File: 1665228649342-1.png (878.8 KB, 832x448, FeaxwBdWYAIB9kl.png)

File: 1665228649342-2.png (825.25 KB, 832x448, FeaxyJGWQAYK1AC.png)

File: 1665228649342-3.png (895.7 KB, 832x448, FeaxyqjWYAE_jkU.png)

These things have no clue how 3D space works. Look how badly it shits the bed trying to replicate Kim Jung Gi's works. Not even talking about the individual people in the scene, I'm talking the entire scene is spatially incoherent.
It's obnoxious how redditors are in this thread pogging at the opportunity to call proles they don't respect 'petty bourgoids,' and that this can somehow replace them when even an untrained eye can tell this is shit at most tasks other than abstract wallpapers.
Please:
- Read theory
- Look further into how AI works than YouTuber hype
- Do Draw-A-Box

 No.568543

>>568542
Those are some pretty good looking pics, looks like something I'd draw in art class

 No.568544

>>568542
>the entire scene is spatially incoherent.
What do you mean?

 No.568545

>>568542
>These things have no clue how 3D space works.
For now.

 No.568546

>>568543
Yeah, I guess. Reminds me of stuff I made for art class too.
>>568544
Try to apply perspective to these in your head, everything's stapled on haphazardly.
Versus Kim Jung Gi's actual works, everything is more sound in 3D space.

 No.568547

>>568545
ya we already have real world simulators like grand theft auto they can use it as a template for shapes and buildings

 No.568548

>>568538
i do not contest that those algorithms are fascinating; neither do i contest that what ml systems are capable of is.
however, i have my gripes with the way ML is pushed since a few years.

the approach to building and training models is the opposite compared to traditional (software) engineering (there is a myriad of problems with modern software 'engineering' anyways). whether a given ML-system will behave the same way it did in training/testing can't be proven until a system is productive. the social implications of having ever more tasks fullfilled by automated systems that can't be proven to work to a given specification is literally retarded.
i see dall-e and mid journey primarily as tools to normalize interaction with ML systems.

the necessary capital and labour to train and operate those systems is beyond ludicrous. this is the reason why only the biggest of corps are able to delve into the endavour of research, development and operation. training is only possible because all the necessary data and labour and capital is appropriated without proper compensation. be it scraping the internet for text/images/whatever. be it outsourcing the menial task of attributing training inputs via mechanical turk to some poor third world sods (nvm. that said person won't give a flying fuck and your training data is riddled with false attributions). be it the highly specialized GPUs/TPUs sourced via slave labour. be it the open source code some nerd hacked together in his basement in his spare time. without all the shit those corps steal, it would in no way be feasible to approach ML the way its currently done.

now, when ML systems are fullfilling ever more societally and economically meaningful tasks, this means ever more power for those controlling those systems.
all this ML/AI shit is a product of capitalism meant to perpetuate capitalism.

 No.568549

>>568548
so well said anon

 No.568550

>>568546
I think the biggest difference is perspective, the AI is clearly trying to do a ground level one like a "generic" painting whereas the actual art has much more variation

 No.568551

>>568550
the AI is trying nothing. the AI has no concept of perspective. the AI is shitting out pixels based on a probalistic distribution it approximated when it was trained with input pictures.

 No.568552

>>568542
>>568546
The characters made by the AI looks like doodles, but but I fail to see where's the difference 3D wise.

 No.568553

>>568551
Yeah my bad, it's more like an algorithm. But this is like saying that a car engine doesn't try to run when it is not starting, it is just a way of speaking. So I will say it is trying even though it is not even an organism.

 No.568554

Ignorant brainlet here. How exactly do these programs generate the images they do? What's are the mechanisms for how it produces art from a prompt and the training process?

 No.568555

>>568554
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perceptron
This is what neural networks and deep learning, as is hyped these days, are based on.
The perceptron was inspired by the times theoretical understanding of how actual neurons work. The perceptron is a model of a neuron. The perceptron was first implemented by Rosenblatt around 1960. It is this inspiration by actual neurons that led to the monicer "neuron" for those perceptrons. A single perceptron alone isn't enough to solve complex problems. Thus, you put several of them together. You create a model. A new 'neuron' can be added to a model, either next to another 'neuron' ('horizontally'), or under/above ('vertically'). Given the verticality, you can now say those neurons are ordered in layers of neurons.
The most basic, common form of neural networks, when you pick a programming book about that shit, you will encounter is called 'Multi Layer Perceptron' - you might now get why that is. Btw: Having multiple layers of perceptrons in a model makes it 'deep'.

Now, how does a perceptron compute an output based on an input? I'll just quote the wiki article:
>In the modern sense, the perceptron is an algorithm for learning a binary classifier called a threshold function:
>a function that maps its input x (a real-valued vector) to an output value f (x) = y (a single binary value)
<Note: there exist other algorithms for learning classifiers, for example Support Vector Machines
<Note: a classifier is learned to fullfill a 'Task'
<Note: there exist other algorithms for learning Tasks different from classification, for example Regression
<'Machine Learning' thus, as a field, studies learning algorithms to solve different tasks by approximating functions
<Note:(Deep) Neural Networks and Deep Learning are sub classes of Machine Learning
<Note: Machine Learning is a sub class of 'Artificial Intelligence'

Based on those building blocks there now exists a myriad of model types and architectures optimized for a myriad of tasks.
Now:
>train some models to understand text prompts
>train some more models to learn what a picture looks like
>train some more models to learn how what a picture looks like would be described via text prompt
>train some more models to generate pictures
>tie it all up
>somewhat fascinating, somewhat shitty ML generated pictures all over the internet

 No.568556

>>568539
This. Anyone who self-identifies himself as an "Artist" by profession is a pretentious twat in my eyes.
You uyghas need a Soviet treatment: plumber by day, artist by night.

 No.568557

I just wanted to be a concept artist…

 No.568558

>Marxist-Leninist algorithm

 No.568559

>>568539
>petty bourgoids are always terrified of being made obsolete, because unlike workers, their contributions are replaceable.
workers are always being replaced by technology. Their contributions, however necessary, are always replaceable. There's a strong history for technological unemployment going back centuries. To imply that only "useless" jobs get replaced is fundamentally anti-worker.
>Just as the Brezhnevite bureaucrats were scared shitless of OGAS, so too will commodified "artists" fear the progress of AI.
It sounds like you think Petty bourgeois = office job. That's not what petty bourgeois means. Petty bourgeois means you own means of production and alienate surplus value from workers, but on a small scale threatened by the haute bourgeois.

Also the entire crux of your argument, is that technological unemployment under capitalism is based because it only ever hurts the petty bourgeois (read: white collar office workers) which is far from the case. You just have a nested series of dumb and unexamined prejudices. You don't think white collar workers are real workers (wrong, they sell their time and their labor for a wage and have their surplus value alienated), you confuse them for the petit bourgeois because you don't respect the *kind* of work they do (wrong, they aren't petit bourgeois) and you think technological unemployment under capitalism only ever affects them and is therefore based (wrong, it affects blue collar and white collar workers alike).

The bourgeoisie is who technological unemployment affects the least because the bourgeoisie own the means of production and get to prioritize what kind of technology gets created in the first place, and who that technology replaces

Yes work that is truly unnecessary ought to get eliminated and redirected towards useful labor for the purposes of economic planning. But the criteria cannot be decided under capitalism because capitalism merely leaves the unemployed impoverished. It does not meaningfully redirect these people towards new jobs. It merely throws them out on their ass and leaves them to pick up the pieces. And the bourgeoisie are almost never the victims.

 No.568560

>>568539
>AI tards unironically look at pic related and call it art
ngmi

 No.568561

that ai "junji ito" doesn't even look like fucking junji ito's work lmao

 No.568562

The AI does not seem very useful. You can't give it a story board and get it to animate it, or even give it key frames and get it to do the in-betweens. The AI can only parse you query and regurgitate an image based on the data it was fed as the AI has no concept of what it is mashing together.

 No.568563

>>568539
>When you are fundamentally anti marxist
Leftypol really is chock full of useless retards that dont read

 No.568564

>>568556
>marvel-tier
The good thing about communism is that it existentially requires the proletariat to be as educated as possible in order to achieve its goals, so capeshit thinkinking like this will dissappear into the trashbin of history alongside all other anti-intellectual shitbrains

 No.568565

>>1251079
For it to that it has to interpret a drawing as a bunch of objects along with recognize the art style and direction. Then it has to know about animation theory so it can get timings right and placement right along with understanding how subtle changes to a body communicates emotion.

 No.568566

I wouldn't be too worried right now. All AI art looks like it was made by a schizophrenic on acid.

 No.568567

Only modern day luddites worried. Its impossible to stop progress. One day this would've happen. It doesnt mean that artists will become obsolete, just that they now will actually have to be creative for once.

 No.568568

>>568567
Artists would prefer better tools rather then brute forcing stupid computers to mimic human art.

 No.568569

>>568567
Luddites didn't actually oppose technology, they opposed the changing economic relations.

It's going to be a new tool in the box of artists and it's likely going to proletarianize artists, their economic relations are changing from artisanal free-labor to wage-worker or subcontracted worker. It might also deskill art creation to some extent. I think those are the reasons why their is opposition.

There is also an upside it will democratize artwork creation, because this will make the barrier to entry much lower.

 No.568570

>>568569
>There is also an upside it will democratize artwork creation, because this will make the barrier to entry much lower.
Exactly. And you can always artificially increase the difficulty of your surrogate activity if you want to feel a sense of purpose, and I cant see how A.I art will take away from that.
Also I just cant see a problem with A.I engine that allows plebs to consume digital art more easily. Its not like people scrolling through Pixiv, Boorus or Pinterest were caring enough about artists behing those pictures anyway. I have seen people literally hang stock images of Paris or Prague from Ikea in their living rooms just becuase it "looks nice".

In the end, I can see how commision artist job market can get a shake up from this. But I just dont see how it will affect layman who just likes to look at pretty pictures for once a while.

 No.568571

>>568570
>it doesn't matter if the workers get screwed over if it benefits the consooomers
Never change, leftypol

 No.568572

Frankly, this shit is dystopian. These models are trained on datasets that include images whose artists did not consent to have on there. It's an extremely sinister technology that will only really benefit big companies that see it as a way to get rid of artists or devalue their work significantly. I would've expected /leftypol/ to be against such a blatant anti-worker technology, but I guess artists don't count?
Think for a second the level of identity theft and personal violation involved with this. All the work you've done as an artist is rendered obsolete, which is already shitty in itself without some sort of compensation for the people affected by this. But the truly vile, sinister idea is this: imagine if, after a lifetime of studying art and becoming a professional artist, a company looks at your portfolio, likes it, but instead of hiring you they simply feed your portfolio into Stable Diffusion and get a version of you that is faster, tireless and doesn't need to be paid.
There are extremely serious and worrying ethical implications of AI that people are just glossing over, here. This shit needs to be regulated heavily. It's already bad enough that Stable Diffusion got released as open source, basically as a way to kick artists when they're down and try to smother their hopes of having this thing regulated away.
>>568569
>their economic relations are changing from artisanal free-labor to wage-worker or subcontracted worker
This WAS happening, with entertainment industry work potentially being a much more stable path for artists than freelance work once you had a few years of experience under your belt. I don't know if that will continue to be the case with AI art.
>There is also an upside it will democratize artwork creation, because this will make the barrier to entry much lower.
I've heard this said a million times and I don't get this argument. There is no barrier to entry to art, all you need is a paper and pencil. Is that already not inherently more democratic than needing a high end graphics card and the computer know-how to install stable diffusion?
It's also a really shitty 'democratization' if it requires you to pay a subscription service to access the best image generation services as we're seeing with Dall-E 2 and MidJourney.

 No.568573

>>568572
>I would've expected /leftypol/ to be against such a blatant anti-worker technology, but I guess artists don't count?
half of this site thinks artists are bourgeois along with baristas and janitors

 No.568574

>>568571
In current system they obviously get screwed. But so are children that farm chocolatte for you or people that risk their lives in cobalt mines for modern electronics.
The question isnt if the technology is bad in Capitalist system (hint: it is), the question is if the technology is also bad in the future Communist system.

 No.568575

The cope about AI art makes me laff. I suspect what’s going to happen is Americans, a country of luddites overcome with despair and pessimism, will make conscious effort to train themselves to aesthetically dislike “AI” art. They will work hard to try and identify it and teach themselves to hate it. A doomed mission.

 No.568576

I don't think it's inherently good or bad

 No.568577

>>568572
>I would've expected /leftypol/ to be against such a blatant anti-worker technology
Marxists don't oppose automation because doing so is both fruitless and utopian. The cat is out of the bag, you can't un-invent this tech. This is why Marx opposed luddism and the "reactionary socialists" that wanted to restore a pre-capitalist social formation. The only question now is identifying and critiquing how this technology will be used under a capitalist system, counterpoised with what it could be used for under socialism.

 No.568578

>>568572
>>568577
>There is no barrier to entry to art, all you need is a paper and pencil.
Also the free time and resources necessary to practice, study art theory, receive technical instruction. Wagies are at an inherent disadvantage, which is why the rich are disproportionately represented among professional artists.

 No.568579

File: 1667501950572.jpg (81.52 KB, 1422x797, tilt-brush.jpg)

>>568570
Yet given this AI just mimics from existing examples then it is full hauntological where the past fully colonizes the present and destroys the future as the AI is incapable of creating anything new as doesn't even know what it is creating as to it is a statical engine that outputs based "correct" feedback.

What you'd want is smooth the learning curve to make it easier for artists to git gud and for professional artists to have better work flows.

 No.568580

>>568573
Value of a profession doesnt inherently come from its class. Doctors and Private bank employees are both part of proletariat, yet one is more essential than other.

 No.568581

>>568579
I dont think humans are any better in creating "new" things. Most of the art in history was driven by inspiration, not by lack of it. Humans arent really special in this regard.
Even with the psychedelics, Christians reported seing the God more while Atheist didnt. Just goes to show how much are people shaped by their enviroment.

Of course, A.I is still leagues behind the human brain, but theres no need to mystify human creativity.

 No.568582

>>568570
>Exactly. And you can always artificially increase the difficulty of your surrogate activity if you want to feel a sense of purpose, and I cant see how A.I art will take away from that.
Or You go into the other direction and create more expansive art because the AI is helping you with producing a lot of the details.
>>568572
>This WAS happening, with entertainment industry work potentially being a much more stable path for artists than freelance work once you had a few years of experience under your belt. I don't know if that will continue to be the case with AI art.
You are confirming what i said that the opposition to AI art is the changing economic relations, for artists not the artwork it self.
People should complain about the economic relations and fight for improving those. Everybody should have a stable economic path regardless of any developments in technology. I think it's reactionary to blame technology for what happens with capitalist economics.
If tech like this came out in a socialist economic system, you'd probably just have a government program to help people get more tech savvy to get on board with using the new productive forces.
> There is no barrier to entry to art, all you need is a paper and pencil. Is that already not inherently more democratic than needing a high end graphics card and the computer know-how to install stable diffusion?
I disagree, because not many people are creating art with paper and pencil, but i can see many more people using this AI art thing to create art. Maybe it takes too much time to learn "manual art".
You have a point about needing a powerful computer that limits the accessibility to tech-savvy people with a high enough income to afford fancy computers. The kid in the slums of Mumbai isn't going to use this to create any art. However software is going to become more computationally efficient and computers are going to become more powerful, so this is not a permanent barrier, the kid in the slums has to wait another 20 years. And we have arrived at another criticism that is levied against technology when it's really a criticism of the economic system. If we were living in a socialist system everybody who wanted such a powerful computer could probably get one, and there would be no kids living in slums.

 No.568583

don't care about the art, it's pretty good at doing porn, from what i've heard

 No.568584

File: 1667503430474-0.jpg (60 KB, 500x706, Dougram.jpg)

File: 1667503430474-1.png (558.8 KB, 720x544, SDF-1 Macross.png)

File: 1667503430474-2.png (730.61 KB, 540x753, VOTOMS-Space.png)

>>568581
The fact there is nothing close to metal robots in antiquity shows that humans do create new things. We simply couldn't have modernity without it. If you were to show a Japanese lord in the feudal period anime it would seem completely alien to them.

 No.568585

>>568584
Yeah concept of a metal robot is a relatively new thing, but it didnt come from vacuum.
First concept of (modern)robot was a direct inspiration from industrialisation and human power over life (see, Frankenstein). And one thing led to another and boom you got Mecha.

You just cant really judge universe by just looking at result without looking at the whole process.
Same thing with Evolution. It seems impossible without inteligent design, yet it was proven that inteligent designer isnt needed time and time again.

 No.568586

>>568584
>The fact there is nothing close to metal robots in antiquity

Talos was a bronze or cast steel flying automaton whose blood was oil. He was forged by Hephaestus to defend the isle of Crete and sink invading ships with stones.

 No.568587

>>568583
And thats who is currently at risk. Porn artist and people who do stuff for big corp like advertising or big game development.
Basically the areas that are already creativelly bankrupt.

Are many people at risk with their job? Sure, it fucking sucks. But the "Death of Art" is just overblown panic. And if you want to be pedantic, you can argue that Art "died" with overflow of abstract art into galleries.

What matter is that Folk art is, and will be alive and well. But you need an actual community for that, not just a Pixiv account.

 No.568588

>>568583
unironically this. AI "art" will be forgotten about in 10 years people will only use it to make porn

 No.568589

File: 1667505033232-0.jpg (75.05 KB, 591x443, gigantor 1.jpg)

>>568585
Yet without inspiration how did humans create industrial machines? Early steam machines were nothing like what was in nature yet humans were able to create them and something current AI can't do. You can't feed an AI all the information humans had before the steam engine and have it output a working steam engine yet our fleshy brain figured out how to get into space shortly after figuring how to make a rocket fly.
>>568586
Yet looks nothing like mecha designs or the older super robot designs.

 No.568590

>>568589
>Yet without inspiration how did humans create industrial machines?
Mathematics. And thats atleast 5000 years or more old field that started by counting your steps to measure your land. You can trace all that to rocket science without problem.

What made the humans special was the capacity to learn. Creativity came after that. You know what else has the capacity to learn? You guessed it.

 No.568591

>>568590
Computers can't learn, they can brute force through trail and error to make more what it thinks is more "correct". Computers still have the Chinese room problem where they don't even know human languages yet have instructions of what to output based on the input without understanding the input. Soviet engineers at least understood what rockets and space were when they were designing Sputnik that even a super computer can't grasp. Hell even your gaming computer has to take massive abstractions to simulate a car driving around a track while not knowing what an abstraction is.

 No.568592

File: 1667506598465.png (672.26 KB, 600x558, ClipboardImage.png)

AI art will be the death of the sakimichans of the world. Fundies grinders with no real message to send out to the world.

 No.568593

>>568591
You are confusing learning with understanding. Computers can learn, thats how neural networks work (and SD too). But they cant understand (for now). Problem is, that most of the computers arent generalist machines that were made over milions of year of evolution to respond and survive in ever changing enviroment.

Also:
>they can brute force through trail and error to make more what it thinks is more "correct"
Thats how learning works. Its just that humans have multimillion year old hardware that makes it look like "magic".

 No.568594

>>568593
Humans use their understanding to make educated guesses on what to try. For example where an AI would randomly change sprite data to create what its masters want without even knowing what each bit does, no programmer even in the 70s did that, programmers manipulated the sprite data to make the computer draw what they wanted it to draw.

This puts humans many leagues above AI as humans can actually master skills to point of no longer needing trail and error and be able to pour what is in their mind in their work through their tools.

The fact AI can't even beat speed runners in NES games shows that AI still is mostly smoke and mirrors.

 No.568595

>>568594
Human understaning came from external trial and error through process of evolution. And even then, you dont understand something immediately, understaning comes from context, already existing experiences and instincts(hardware if you will).

>This puts humans many leagues above AI as humans can actually master skills to point of no longer needing trail and error and be able to pour what is in their mind in their work through their tools.

Humans no longer needing trial and error after mastering a skill is just false. If you have learned and memorised the pattern, the intricacies and fine tuning are done in the backround subconsiously in the state of flow. Even then its just mix of response to perception and tapping to already learned stuff.

Also you are really making the process of learning more complicated that it really is. This isnt 70s anymore, computers have already beaten humans in GO and chess and if it was just smoke and mirrors then artist would not go apeshit.

I mean sure, I confirmed atleast 3 times already that A.I has a long way to go to human level, but if you judge the the legitimacy of technology by NES spedrunning, the position of goalpost might not matter too much.

 No.568596

>>568595
NES speed running shows AI problem with understanding the meta. A speed runner understands they are playing a game so glitches exist as does sequence breaking yet that flags have to be set for sequences so you can sequence break into an unwinnable state. All this completely lost on AI that won't even try to phase through walls or aim for memory buffer overflows to get the game's code to glitch and start reading at the wrong memory address. We are truly gods compared to the intelligence of AI.

 No.568597

>>568595
What humans do is understanding actual concepts. Computers just compute numbers. Hell, computers don't even know what a number is. Only humans know the actual mathematical concepts involved. Despite exponential increase in computing speed, there has been zero progress in conceptual understanding AI because computers don't think even at the most rudimentary level. You seem to think that faster computing will magically enable computers to do what humans do like evolution led to consciousness in living organisms but there is no relation between the two. Computers are boolean logic machines. Thought is dialectical.

 No.568598

>>568578
>Also the free time and resources necessary to practice, study art theory, receive technical instruction
Only time is the real issue. The rest is all something you can get for free online.

 No.568599

>>568592
I would take a hundred thousand Sakimichan images to a single AI generated pinup

 No.568600

>>568382
>>Stable Diffusion draws controversy on Twitter from artists who say the AI infringes on copyrights
unfathomably based beyond currently known limits. i'd say by a googolplex-fold.

 No.568601

Here's my doomer prediction
>AI art gets good enough to fool most people, but not enough to surpass real human artistry
>That is however enough for most companies so the professional art market disappears
>The only people who can afford to work as artists are trust fund babies
>Art is thus reduced to A. mass produced AI garbage B. garbage produced by navel gazing elites C. the occasional soulful drawing by a wagie in the little free time they have
Prove me wrong, god please prove me wrong

 No.568602

>>568601
Nah, artists are pretty cheap in the grand scheme of things. Art is also front facing, the place you really don't want to cut corners. Why do you think companies pay millions of dollars for a simple logo design? Anyone could do it, but they can afford and want the best. It's like a cheap t-shirt does the job but people still want to pay out the ass for Gucci. Presentation is everything.

 No.568603

I don't like copyright but I don't think it's fair that artists practice their skills their entire lives only for some for-profit company to run their drawings through a training model that puts them out of business. Something about that feels horribly unethical and feels like it should be a crime.

 No.568604

>>568602
If anything I think there's an oversupply of artists right now which will probably only get worse just seeing how many new artists Easter Europe, Korea, and China are churning out that can make work on a high level.

 No.568605

File: 1667576825394-0.jpg (184.45 KB, 1440x1130, disneystrike_a.jpg)

File: 1667576825394-1.jpg (313.62 KB, 1440x1192, disneystrike_f.jpg)

>>568602
It is due to studios being successful in crushing labor organizations among artists.

 No.568606

Why are people in this thread pretending that artists are some privileged bourgeois class? Overwhelmingly, they make shit money unless they're at the very top. You guys do know Sakimichans are far and few between, right?

 No.568607

>>568605
I shouldn't be surpised that artists being on strike ends up aesthetic.

 No.568608

>>568596
> A speed runner understands they are playing a game so glitches exist as does sequence breaking yet that flags have to be set for sequences so you can sequence break into an unwinnable state. All this completely lost on AI that won't even try to phase through walls
AI can cheat in games too
https://youtu.be/Lu56xVlZ40M?t=153
stop the cope
its over for artcels

 No.568609

>>568477
AI isnt a brain simulation. Stable diffusion isnt a brain simulation. Maybe you should read more about something before vomiting your uninformed opinion into the world.

 No.568610

god i wish you all killed this shitty clickbait OP

>>568597
>What humans do is understanding actual concepts.
Eh, not really.
Brains just process input and send output. You don't need to know what a synapse or photon is to build a shelter and seek food. Brains are just complex, organic, plastic computers. (plastic in the sense of malleability)

Your distinction of machine learning and human thoughts is still valuable but to pretend that computers are just physics and that brains aren't just physics is a crappy argument.

 No.568611

>>568596
You appear to be making an assumption that you need to 'understand the meta' to exploit the meta.
When I was maybe 10 years old I discovered a glitch in a console game that allowed me to use two attacks in a single turn. I did not seek this glitch out based on experience, I didn't have any understanding of flow control, and this exploit wasn't based on any I know of.
It was accidental, it absolutely could have been achieved by dumb experimentation by an AI, provided its designer didn't constrain it by human assumptions.

Consider this example: >>568608
If the person defining how the AI is able to interact when trialing techniques, and assumed you have to be standing besides a block to grab it, then it couldn't have exploited the unforeseen trick of pulling a block it is standing on. That, like many speedrunning tricks, initially started by trying something without a goal, even accidental. Then, when someone with the experience of a programmer understands that this occurs due to how the physics engine fails to check for height/ground collision.

Your argument seems to be that speed-runners are trained to recognize where potential glitches can manifest and how to exploit them, using understanding of common data storage errors like buffer overflow and integer underflow.
So why couldn't someone train an AI model to 'understand the meta'? Sure, it wouldn't be worth it economically or in time-efficiency to program in conditions that are considered normal or to teach it to target potential exploits, but I think it would be possible.

 No.568612

>>568608
>>568611
That is kiddie stuff for speed runners. Glitch speed runners are game testers mixed with hackers where they find bugs and exploit them to change how the code is run. The speed running community has programmers in it thus why when bugs are found to run arbitrary code it doesn't take speed runners that long to find out how to fully utilize it.

Try and imagine how an AI would figure out the Final Fantasy stack pointer glitch and fully utilize it. https://youtu.be/zjAtY8QXZa8

 No.568613

>Human creativity is somehow different from AI "regurgitation"

Cope, whatever a human artist creates is still what an AI does but with extra steps and emotion which gives the illusion of meaning.

 No.568614

>>568385
>Media company makes an AI that can be creative.
>AI creates media that conveys sentiments of opinions that clash with that of the company.
>Can't use movies generated by AI in case it contains potent anti-capitalist, pro-piracy, anti-movie theater/streaming service, ect… messages that slip past committee review.
Sauce? Based AI if true.
<The moment communism is realised, because AIs concluded that crapitalism must be abolished.

 No.568615

>>568612
>ai can't cheat at games
<gets shown an example of an ai cheating at a game
>uh that's just kiddie stuff (goalpost = moved)
end the cope
it's over for both speedcels and artcels

 No.568616

>>568615
Why are codecels so hopped up about this? Call me when any commercial production is actually done by this crap.

>IT'S COMING, IT'S COMING,IT'S COMING,IT'S COMING,IT'S COMING,IT'S COMING,IT'S COMING,IT'S COMING,IT'S COMING,


When, what year? Predictions need dates.

 No.568617

>>568616
No, they literally don't.

How the fuck are you supposed to predict something that doesn't suddenly eventuate one day? Why should you make an arbitrary guess at when an ongoing trend will suddenly be declared 'happened'?

 No.568618

>>568616
>When, what year? Predictions need dates.
doomsday has already arrived for artcels in the form of stable diffusion.
speedcels are next
i give them 2 years at most before ai starts demolishing speedrun records
>IT'S COMING, IT'S COMING,IT'S COMING,IT'S COMING,IT'S COMING,IT'S COMING,IT'S COMING,IT'S COMING,IT'S COMING,
no, it's not coming, it's here.

 No.568619

>>568615
We are not talking about cheating at games but about understanding the code underneath the game. The vast majority of high end speed running strats are based around the community understanding how a glitch works under the hood.

 No.568620

>>568618
>doomsday has already arrived for artcels in the form of stable diffusion.
But it literally hasn't. You didn't answer the question.

>When has any commercial production actually been done by this crap.


It's simply a gimmick in a long of "automated" gimmicks that changed nothing. What are you going to tell me next, writing articles by autofill?

 No.568621

File: 1667741639605.png (566.17 KB, 853x480, ClipboardImage.png)

>>568617
>No, they literally don't.
>How the fuck are you supposed to predict something that doesn't suddenly eventuate one day? Why should you make an arbitrary guess at when an ongoing trend will suddenly be declared 'happened'?
I guess we're trending towards the AI singularity and AI butlers. I saw it in The Jetsons. Fuck off with your sci-fi wankery.

 No.568622

File: 1667741802440.png (64.33 KB, 853x420, ClipboardImage.png)

I just can't get over how codecels are so obsessed with this shit and why they're so obsessed with automating art of all things? Some kind of jealously because they're spiritually and creatively bankrupt. I can think of dozens and dozens of things that could be automated before art.

I think coding will become automated before art lol, but codecels never talk about that.

 No.568623

>>568622
>I just can't get over how codecels are so obsessed with this shi
oh for sure why would anyone seek what's essentially one of the most profitable ventures ever seen since the invention of the internet itsellf, it makes NO sense.

 No.568624

>>568477
>represent organic neurons much more accurately.
jesus christ, no, they're obviously modeled after neurons but AI "neurons" are essentially a single treshold function

 No.568625

>>568588
leftypol has the dumbest futurists

 No.568626

>>1255219
I don't understand this take. It might become more difficult to be a professional artist, in the sense that we don't really have portrait painters anymore, but it's not like art itself is going anywhere. It's a fundamentally human concept, we draw before we can even write or speak.

 No.568627

File: 1667777725875-1.jpg (216.06 KB, 2816x1792, stable-diffusion-1.jpg)

File: 1667777725875-2.jpg (135.07 KB, 830x1199, 7sdc159ihbi91.jpg)

File: 1667777725875-3.jpg (23.21 KB, 512x448, 688.jpg)

>>568626
>but it's not like art itself is going anywhere.
no one said it is, we're claiming that art becoming massively accessible to the common man will make 95% of artists redundant. Soon even a lay man will be able to create what he wants to see with just half an hour of work.
Artcels have wasted their lives on learning to draw for nothing.
Art will go nowhere.
Artcels will be going into the coal mine.

 No.568628


 No.568629

>>1255219
>listen up guys, we have to use our coding skills to liberate the working class
<should we create ai tech that fucks with the banking sector, with landlords, with the MIC, with small business tyrants, with lobbyists?
>No! We have to go against the real enemy of the working class, twitter drawfags
>with this ai, the working class will at last be able to generate images of Bowser fucking princess peach FOR FREE, instead of for 5 dollars
<codebros… i think we archieved communism

 No.568630

File: 1667782762084-0.png (617.38 KB, 512x768, ai generated 1.png)

File: 1667782762084-1.png (704.95 KB, 640x800, ai generated 2.png)

File: 1667782762084-2.png (838.65 KB, 512x768, ai generated 3.png)

>>568629
>whataboutism
as expected from a COPEmonkey
>>568620
>But it literally hasn't
but it literally has, stable diffusion is already producing artworks with more SOUL than what 98% of artcels are capable of.
>When has any commercial production actually been done by this crap.
that is gonna start very very soon, sooner than you might think.

 No.568631

seriously feel like leftypolacks brain is getting really squeezed here when they can only think in retarded highschool clique terms like "artcels vs codecels".

 No.568632

>>1255219
Lmao what a retarded fag
Maybe workers can just learn how to paint instead of the autism your regurgitating here?

 No.568633

>>568632
>Maybe workers can just learn how to paint
uh what about workers suffering from arthritis sweaty : )
ableism much???
the liberation of the working class from the artfags is at hand, and the creative potential of the blue collar worker shall be unleashed upon the world.

 No.568634

>>568623
>oh for sure why would anyone seek what's essentially one of the most profitable ventures ever seen since the invention of the internet itself, it makes NO sense.
What's going to be profitable about it? There's already a dozen of these shit AI models out there, then there will be a dozen more, and another dozen after that. Nobody is going to make any money when shit AIs are so easy to make.

 No.568635

>>568630
>but it literally has, stable diffusion is already producing artworks with more SOUL than what 98% of artcels are capable of.
To your retarded eyes.

>that is gonna start very very soon, sooner than you might think.

Once again I said call me when that happens.

 No.568636

this technology is extremely useful for producing propaganda

 No.568637

>>568634
>What's going to be profitable about it? There's already a dozen of these shit AI models out there, then there will be a dozen more, and another dozen after that. Nobody is going to make any money when shit AIs are so easy to make.
1. go into an industry involving art like marketing
2. use stable diffusion to create the same amount of artwork in an hour that it would take twenty artcels to make by hand in a day
3. rake in massive amounts of money
id be surprised if coders aren't beginning to do this already as freelancers
>>568635
>more babbeling artfag cope
how generic, how unimaginative
<how computer like

 No.568638

>>568636
also, everyone arguing and trolling about whether this is a good thing or not are idealist af - it exists, it will continue to exist. It's only worth it to discuss the parallels between it and the mechanised loom, and how to use this new change in the landscape of reality as effectively as possible.

 No.568639

File: 1667795161816.png (11.82 KB, 133x190, gommieoni.png)

my opinion is thusly unto thee that Van Gogh is moe and impressionism is the best artstyle.

 No.568640

File: 1667795535839-0.png (2.48 MB, 800x1335, ClipboardImage.png)

File: 1667795535839-1.jpg (79.08 KB, 480x640, 33708492_p0.jpg)

File: 1667795535839-2.jpg (684.38 KB, 1017x1024, 49605731_p0.jpg)

>>568639
Van Gogh was a weeb, of course he's moe.
Also cute Akita

 No.568641

>>568631
>t. copecel

 No.568642

File: 1667870742016.png (152.84 KB, 1375x757, ClipboardImage.png)

The AI art hype died as quickly as it came.
pic related: post frequency on 4chan's hentai board returning to normal after getting bored of generating generic hentai

 No.568643

>>568642
>current posts per day
>2100
>average posts per day from JUL 11 - SEP 26
>1250
>returning to normal after getting bored of generating generic hentai
>returning to normal
It's still above double the pre AI average

 No.568644

File: 1667883408356.gif (852.38 KB, 500x717, 1667856548142957.gif)

I've been using this tech to make Ellen Page porn and feeling sad that the real thing can never be

 No.568645

>>568643
It still dropped massively from the apex THOUGH, same pattern on /g/. Goes to show that the average consumer is gets bored of the tech after generating a few pictures.

 No.568646

>>568644
this shits addictive in a sexual sense. I am too inundated with female hormones now but everyone around me that uses this have raw dicks now, it can give you anything you want

 No.568647


 No.568648

>>568647
The speed running does such stuff it is just Q-Bert wasn't on glitch hunters radar.

 No.568649

>>568642
yeah i tried all that AI generation nonsense and I Just find it to be kind of bland.

 No.568650

why aren't we using this for propaganda purposes?

 No.568651

here's a better example.

>>568649
I've mostly figured it out. how bland it is is how willing you are to hand hold it and cherry pick, there's still human input

 No.568652


 No.568653

>>568652
The AI knows working retail fucking sucks.

 No.568654

>>568651
>>568650
How are you making these? Do you need a monster PC for an AI to generate these?

 No.568655

>>568650
First actually good AI art.

 No.568656

>>568654
just a decent modern gaming pc. I'm using a 3050gtx with 4gb vram

 No.568657

File: 1668016427041.jpg (280.58 KB, 2048x2048, 07081.jpg)

for real though, I'm telling you, this could be used to make generating propaganda easier. You'd still have to be artistically minded, you'd still have to be willing to open the images up in gimp/photoshop, willing to tune things, if someone wants to pick up on this particular area of study I'll leave these settings for you

(proletarian:1.1), starbux workers, gas station worker, grocery store worker, apron, sad face, disappointed face, tired girl, (face focus:1.2), (background focus:1.3), (masterpiece:1.4), (best quality:1.2), (trending artwork:1.5), [woman | catgirl] working in a store, [(highly detailed painting:1.1),(beautiful reserved color choice, masterful color choice, great artist:1.2):0.3], bags under eyes, purple bags under eyes, very tired, sleepy
Negative prompt: (japanese animation:1.2), (anime:1.2), (((Flat colors))), (vector art:1.3), (bad art:1.4), horrible art, artist mistake, off model, missing face, blank face, faceless, weird face, fucked up face, messed up anatomy, gore, loli, nsfw, porn, hentai, manly, facial hair
Steps: 25, Sampler: DPM++ 2M Karras, CFG scale: 12, Seed: 1871173155, Size: 1024x1024, Model hash: 925997e9, Seed resize from: 512x512, Denoising strength: 0.7, First pass size: 512x512

using naimodel

 No.568658

File: 1668297915335.png (382.67 KB, 512x512, ClipboardImage.png)


 No.568659

This sucks, my dream was to be a concept artist. Fuck.

 No.568660

>>568612
>>568619
this lol
call me when an AI even begins to be capable of the shit you see in vidrel

 No.568661

File: 1668573583433.png (Spoiler Image, 379.75 KB, 750x745, ClipboardImage.png)


 No.568662

I'm generating so much porn, It's great (until you get bored of it)

 No.568663

File: 1668588691031.png (43.96 KB, 552x585, ClipboardImage.png)

none of this AI art shit can do calligraphy coherently yet so calligraphy chads stay winning (for now)

 No.568664

>>568480
>having ai produce porn of whatever fantasy you have
That sounds like the beginning of a plot from a Cronenberg film

 No.568665

>>568486
>consoomers don’t have to deal with bitchy and temperamental artists who take forever to finish a commission
Sounds like someone had a hard time getting an artist to make their furry fetish art :(

 No.568666

>>568658
Amogus

 No.568667

File: 1668645656170-0.png (1.14 MB, 600x1200, ClipboardImage.png)

File: 1668645656170-1.png (625.62 KB, 512x768, ClipboardImage.png)

File: 1668645656170-2.png (541.8 KB, 512x768, ClipboardImage.png)

Weird. I've been looking on pixiv, and they have a lot of ai-generated stuff. Some of it looks pretty good, but I can always tell if it's AI-generated just from the thumbnail. It never has any personality I guess. A lot of hand drawn anime stuff lacks personality too so I dunno if that's it. Also it's always a weird mismash of perfect rendering and linework and slightly fucked up proportions/anatomy.

I dunno how they make all this stuff. I was seeing this vid on about posing a 3d model and letting the ai generate from there. But once you're at that point you could've just traced and rendered it yourself. I guess even just rendering would be a timesaver but then it also probably can't let you really create your lighting how you want it. Maybe if you could light a 3d model and it could turn it into a drawing effectively it might create customizable good looking results.

 No.568668

take a look at this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpUpVznI4Yc
It's a disturbed music video, made with AI generated stills
All the comrades who said this tech should and can be used for propaganda: extra vindicated

 No.568669

>>568668
goes hard

 No.568670

>>568667
This is like insane level of trying not ot draw hands or feet. And when it does, they are fucked up.

 No.568671

>>568670
Guess AI learned too much from comic book artists

 No.568672

>>568671
kek (also trips)

 No.568673

File: 1670979654725.jpg (82.54 KB, 720x1130, artists.jpg)

BAD NEWS FOR ARTCELS
THE AI CAN NOW DO WORK IN PROGRESS PICTURES NOW
IT'S OVER

 No.568674

>>568673
It doesn't do silly joke doodles around the main sketch. Also timelapses / Vtuber streaming could be used to stand out.

 No.568675

>>568674
I have low art sensibilities, but when I'm appreciating art, I don't care much about the actual piece. I also care about who made it, why they made it, etc. This excludes "cool shit", like surrealism, consumer symbols, and other contextless pieces of art. It takes lots of artistic sensibilties to pick out art that inspires or evokes something in you or others, that is something an AI can't do.

 No.568676

the critique of ai art can be found in what its being used for and who its being used by. business, memes, and porn. in the eventuality that it and the practitioners start regularly passing turing tests, all its hurting is cringe commodification of art.
also the early panic of ai art might be enough for most people to cringe at it unless its for memes and hobby use.
my main issue is how people are sourcing the art training the AI. sure as hell wasnt with consent. might turn into a legal fiasco if your work isnt transformative enough.

 No.568677

>>568675
why would that exclude surrealism?

 No.568678

>>568677
Because I think its pop art ;) it was a subtle critique.
I mostly mean Dali. I dislike his entire thing, although some of his paintings are superficially aesthetically pleasing. And that's what I mean, his paintings might be aesthetically pleasing, which an AI art generator can do, but it can't do something like Picasso's Guernica. Good art, or high art, compared to superficial art, is philosophically charged. Imagine an anonymous AI does something that is imbued with meaning like Oscar Wilde's Dorian Gray in a parallel universe where the original doesn't exist. If we read this masterpiece and give it the same praise, then it is actually us, the readers, who have imbued the piece with meaning. It raises the question of whether art is made by the artist or by an artist mediated by society. Given this thought experiment, I'd say it is the latter. Therefore AI doesn't produce art. It produces images. It is us who imbue this images with meaning. Deeper meaning of art that transcends the piece itself is made easier by contextualizing a piece, something which is harder to do with AI art.

 No.568679

File: 1671013679725.jpg (361.81 KB, 2540x1188, Fj5yMicagAApYKJ.jpg)

The front page of artstation rn

 No.568680

>>568679
It is like the ludites protesting against the looms.

 No.568681

>>568680
Luddites were working people protesting for their salaries and work conditions though, they fought cops and soldiers more than looms. The problem is still overall capitalism putting people out of work in a system where you need it to survive because it can produce commodities cheaper with automation, and the luddites who saw machines as the problem are the same as artists seeing AIs as the problem, almost there but foolish.

 No.568682

>>568679
honestly, the creators of these AIs are stealing from artists. there is zero chance that these things weren't trained on millions of images they had no rights to.

 No.568683

>>568682
Visual artists / illustrators invariably rely on copious amounts of reference material (including commercial and other artist's works)
Tumblr and Pinterest used to be popular for exactly this purpose. They don't copy it exactly but neither does the AI

 No.568684

>>568683
I think there has to be a difference between an artist working from reference material and an AI scanning every pixel of it to construct a massive neural net that will just be used to push out artists.

 No.568685

I just think it's sad, I mean, does anyone doubt that this will just drive art further towards corporate ends? Nothing but regurgitation.

 No.568686

File: 1671015794192.jpg (49.97 KB, 318x475, 9854239.jpg)

>>568685
>Nothing but regurgitation.
Pretty sure this book argued that a decade ago

 No.568687

>>568686
I just don't like where this is all going. That one quote in the OP is right, art will become disposable trash just like clothes and photographs are today.

 No.568688

>>568687
It already was such for quite a while.

 No.568689

>>568688
At least the fact you needed to pay for it/draw it yourself meant people valued it a bit.

 No.568690

>>568687
Art can't be allowed to be massed and conveniently produced?
Isn't that quite very reactionary the sort of opinion to have?
This technology could certainly be used to reduce the workload on people who have lots of tedious tasks, like in the animation industry?

 No.568691

>>568690
Sure, in a way it's good, but I've noticed that when something is easily available it becomes basically worthless. I don't really know what to do about this but it applies from clothing, art, media, videogames, etc etc. It just seems like once something is cheap and easy to get, nobody cares about it anymore.

 No.568692

>>1302332
Yeah that's definitely a fair comparison.

 No.568693

>>568598
and time is most valuable thing there is specially for poor people that have to dedicate every second of the their time to survive.

 No.568694

>>568382
untill AI can put it into a context that anyone cares about it will only make artists jobs easier not remove them

 No.568695

I am so glad that this is crushing the dreams of all those twitter 'artists'. Fuck every single one of these hack brainlets. No more infation furry art, time to get a real job lmao.

 No.568696

>>568695
you sound like those 'thot audit' saddos, jealous much?

 No.568697


 No.568698

File: 1671036883615.png (477.59 KB, 476x470, fam guy weed.png)

I was reading about the history of art the other day. Apparently for thousands of years art was based on imitation, the concept is called Dionysian imitatio. It was only around the 18th century that the idea of romantic originality was invented

>Dionysian imitatio is the influential literary method of imitation as formulated by Greek author Dionysius of Halicarnassus in the first century BCE, which conceived it as the rhetoric practice of emulating, adaptating, reworking and enriching a source text by an earlier author. It marked the beginning of the doctrine of imitation, which dominated the Western history of art up until 18th century, when the notion of romantic originality was introduced.


So this ai, AI merely imitates, it can not create a work of originality or genius, it has no emotions.
It has turned the art world over night into neo romantics!

I think this is the beginning of the end of post modernism and the beginning of a new romanticism

 No.568699

File: 1671038911986.jpg (111.15 KB, 602x1003, 1636408626910.jpg)


 No.568700

>>568699
you have very special form of autism anon

 No.568701


 No.568702

>>568699
lmao, very nice

 No.568703

been seeing so many anti ai posts that i may start supporting ai art just to spite

 No.568704

>>568700
I swiped it from 4chan, where an argument regarding Hitler's ability as an artist got very… heated.

 No.568705

>>568682
Indeed they were, I'm unsure if things will escalate, but artists found their own works were used on stable diffusion's training set, LAION, without permission. Not sure if things will escalate. I mean, this is sort of similar to vocaloid in a way, developers reproducing human voice through software synthesis had to explicitly seek permission from the real-ass flesh and blood singers they were using as reference, this shouldn't have been any different. Alas.

 No.568706

File: 1671155307559.png (98.59 KB, 825x1353, ClipboardImage.png)

codingcels are on the chopping block too.

For instance, I just told chatGPT to create a userscript that undoes some of the wordfilters the mods imposed and got this.

// UserScript
// @name Replace filtered words
// @namespace leftypol
// @include *://leftypol.org/*
// @grant none
// /UserScript

const replaceFilteredWords = (node) => {
if (node.nodeType === Node.TEXT_NODE) {
node.textContent = node.textContent
.replace(/bernie sanders/gi, 'Dugin')
.replace(/autism score/gi, 'IQ')
.replace(/uyghur/gi, 'nope');
}
};

// Replace filtered words in all elements with the "body" class
const applyFilteredWordReplacements = () => {
const bodyElements = document.querySelectorAll('.body');
bodyElements.forEach((bodyElement) => {
bodyElement.childNodes.forEach(replaceFilteredWords);
});
};

// Replace filtered words when the document first loads
applyFilteredWordReplacements();

// Replace filtered words when the document mutates
const observer = new MutationObserver(applyFilteredWordReplacements);
observer.observe(document.body, {
childList: true,
subtree: true,
});


codingcels literally selling the rope from which they will hang on

 No.568707

>>568706
Nah, they ain't going fuckin nowhere.

 No.568708

Why don't you just replace the whole world with AI, doomer?

 No.568709

>>568706
lol nobody is going anywhere yet, by now it should be more than painfully obvious that both ChatGPT and stable diffusion are generating a bunch of derivative shit. they can't program, and they can't paint, they can only regurgitate stuff, they learned somewhere else.

 No.568710

Voice actors are on suicide watch as well. There's new text to speech AI being developed that sounds almost indistinguishable from a real voice.

 No.568711

>>568627
This AI is not good at doing art. In fact it's looks like complete shit.

"AI" isn't really intelligent, just a glorified algorithm doing brute force collages. What I am pissed off at is the fact these corporations are using artists work without permission to train these over-glorified algorithms on.

Read these posts:
>>568383
>>568449
>>568459
>>568464
>>568468
>>568483
>>568488
>>568491
>>568511

 No.568712

>>568708
As if that would be a bad thing.

 No.568713


 No.568714

File: 1671165215767.png (14.6 KB, 300x284, tfw.png)

>be indie music producer
>feel happy for AI art at first because it means I can generate my own album art and don't have pay people for it
>but then i realize AI-generated music will soon replace us

 No.568715

>>568713
Based technoskeptic

 No.568716

>>568711
>In fact it's looks like complete shit.
Having seen it pop up on some of the bigger boorus, it reminds me of early Shadman art, the ones where the >shadman memes came from. They looked like a polished turd; cute lighting tricksand post-prod effects on top of a fundamentally flawed base. Like a butt a quarter of the way up a spine.

ML image generation can make things that are visually appealing or reasonably convincing, but it isn't going to be creating anything with meaning. It recycles mindlessly. Eye-candy.

 No.568717

>>568713
>"AI" is nothing but a way for Capitalism to try to keep going.
Eh… no.
AI is [effectively] a marketing term for an actual technology with actual applications. It's misused and overhyped due to capitalism but neural networks & etc. would still have applications even in a post-profit world. Not the ones they advertise, ones that are actually useful.

We just see the eye-candy bullshit.

 No.568718

>>568712
You go first.

 No.568719

>>568542
Wait until AI is used to stable diffuse a 3D scene - say, after it investigates architecture and sculpture. It will take a lot of time for the current way AI works, though - it's an order of complexity over the 2D

 No.568720

>>568709
Still better than what an ordinary untaught human can do. And with random nobodies out of the coding/arts field coming into the scene with AI help, guess what will happen to the wages :^)

 No.568721

>>568681
>>568680
Luddites were the victims of anti-worker propaganda. Nobody protested looms, it's just a capitalist myth to make protesters seem insane and unsympathetic

 No.568722

>>568720
For one, we don't consume art made by untalented amateurs, at least I hope you don't. Second, it's kinda hard to see what will happen to wages. I mean, this is comparable to photoshop in that it simplifies the artistic process by enabling single artists to dominate a variety of techinques, but in the end photoshop didn't replace oil painters despite having an oil painting brush, and in the long run, it made room for a bunch of roles at small companies that wouldn't have existed otherwise. Like the direct correlation between increased productivity tools and wages is not that novel and not as clear cut.

> And with random nobodies out of the coding/arts field coming into the scene with AI help

Yeah but what if this just means that there's just a bunch of new coders that weren't able to afford artists breaking out into video games that wouldn't have made games otherwise, like if AI enables a bunch of video games that wouldn't exist otherwise, does that have an appreciable impact on wages? Serious projects will still be on the lookout for professional talent because AI generated projects will NOT stand out. Like making your project in fucking RPG maker, you need to put in the work to stand out, that ain't changing.

 No.568723

>>568722
>the direct correlation
I meant the inverse correlation but you catch my drift

 No.568724

File: 1671169383433.jpg (5.07 MB, 4096x2741, pastiche.jpg)

>>568713
>It’s because GPT-3 is the king of pastiche.

>Pastiche, in case you don’t know the word, is, as wiki defines it, “a work of visual art, literature, theatre, music, or architecture that imitates the style or character of the work of one or more other artists”. GPT-3 is a mimic.


>In some sense, GPT is like a glorified version of cut and paste, where everything that is cut goes through a paraphrasing/synonymy process before it is paste but together—and a lot of important stuff is sometimes lost along the way.

Yup, I'd say this describes AI art generation to a tee.

 No.568725

>>568722
>>568723
Well, we can expect that all those "shills" and "text generator" jobs get automated away. What are those called, "copywriters"? HTML-monkeys also lose their jobs, and so do small-scale illustrators, as seen by them chimping out on that art site.

Surprisingly enough, majority of art and text jobs are not the famous authors and artists, huh, but rather the grunts who barely make ends meet

 No.568726

Isn't the concept of copyright super spooked?

 No.568727


 No.568728

>>568726
Yes, it is.
Copyright has grown to become the entire length of the creator's life plus 70 years in the US (almost every country is life+50 to life+100, yes, including PRC and Cuba and Russia). Which is ridiculous and anti-social. Now, something like a month is a reasonable compromise between the needs of creators under capitalism against greater social progress, more than a couple of years is an outright crime against humanity.

Copyright is artificial scarcity for capitalist society to cope with post-scarce mediums. Same with any digital purchase (transferring a file is approximately 0 cost). If creators weren't pressured to exploit their audience to survive and thrive while creating those products, you could totally just download everything you have the means to store.

 No.568729

>>568728
As someone who volunteers for marxists.org I am eminently aware of all the bullshit surrounding copyright. There are cases where a couple in the UK translate a book in the late 1890s and it's STILL in copyright because the young wife died in 1954. Or the case I'm dealing with now, a Marxist academic collated a bunch of public domain texts, but because he added few contextual footnotes libraries refuse to give you access to these uber-rare materials for posterity, even though they've already scanned it is there a way to fake a vision disability?

I think the most outrageous abuse of copyright however is when they actively refuse to have the book printed in any form. The best example is a 500+ page book by Sidney Hook (forgot the exact name) about Marxist philosophy that was originally printed in 1933. Since then, however, Hook became an anti-communist apostate, and he actively refused to have the book printed again in any form. For decades and decades the only way to read the book was to find a library which stocked the 1933 edition and hadn't been stolen yet. Marxists.org tried to rectify this with a digital edition, but it turns out that the Hook estate all the way to 2020ish filed a cease and desist to take it down.

 No.568730

a lot of these artists were making jokes about stealing by "right clicking" NFTs, and now that a computer is doing it to them they are going full sperg mode

 No.568731

File: 1671190829411.png (595.29 KB, 1500x1500, ClipboardImage.png)

>I fuckin love science! Just learn to code c​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​h​​​​​​​​​​​​​u​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​d! Progress is a good thing! Automation is the only way forward.
>WAIT GO BACK!! I WAS SUPPOSED TO BE GETTING PAID TO DRAW! I COULDNT FORSEE THIS HAPPENING TO MEEEEEE!!!!

>right click, SAVED! Yup that NFT is mine now, c​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​h​​​​​​​​​​​​​u​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​d!

>DELETE MY PICTURES FROM YOUR DATABASE NOWWWW

>It's a ROMHACK it's not copyright infringement! It's a fan inspired transformative work! Fuck the lawyers at Nintendo!

>WHAT DO YOU MEAN THE AI IS USING MY ART WITHOUT PERMISSION AND TRANSFORMING IT INTO SOMETHING NEW!!

>Gatekeeping is le BAD! Everything is for everyone! We will take the thing you love and corrupt it into a husk of its former greatness, and that's a good thing!

>YOU CANT JUST GENERATE 100000 ANIME GIRL IMAGES! THIS IS CORRUPTING THE MEANING OF ART!! PICK UP A PENCIL IF YOU WANT TO BE AN ARTIST

>Don't bully a learning artist. Not every detail needs to be perfectly accurate, it's called a style! Everyone, no matter how skilled, is valid and amazing!

>IS THAT AN OUT OF PLACE ELBOW??? IS THE LEFT ARM SLIGHTLY BIGGER THAN THE RIGHT?? THIS IS SHIT! YOU NEED TO HAVE PERFECT ANATOMY LIKE THOSE RACIST ROMAN STATUES I WANT TO TEAR DOWN!

>heh, god isnt real C​​​​​​​​​H​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​U​​​​​​​​​D. there is no afterlife, you WILL decompose in a box, you WILL become dust! We're all just sacks of meat floating on a rock in space!!

>NOOOO AI ART LACKS HUMAN SOUL! IT LACKS INSPIRATION AND HUMAN SPIRIT! THE VERY FOUNDATIONS OF WHAT IT MEANS TO BE HUMAN ARE BEING SHAKEN TO THEIR CORE!!

>Anything can be art! Two gay black transhumanist​​​​​​​​s shitting in eachother's mouths? Wholesome! A banana taped to a wall?? Inspiring! Everything is ART!

>NOOOO THIS CANT BE ART ITS NOT PERFECT ENOUGH!!! UGH, JUST LOOK AT THE ARTIFACTS AND THE HAIR AND THE HAND ITS JUST ALLL WRONG!!! ITS NOT REAL ART! TYPING SHIT INTO A TERMINAL AND GETTING AN IMAGE OUT ISNT ART (throwing my own shit against a wall and putting a frame around it is THOUGH)

 No.568732

>>568731
where did the artist touch you?

 No.568733

>>568732
on my Twitter feed where I just wanted to see nice art and not their constant bitching about random bullshit..

 No.568734

>>568726
Yea, which is interesting if you look at it from class basis. I mean most artists aren't scared about losing jobs (although this too is scary), but are angry at Big Computer violating copyright law.
And this is understandable, because modern artist who does commissions is, in essence, a petit bourgeois.

 No.568735


 No.568736

>>568731
Soychads, I kneel

 No.568737

File: 1671194932569.jpg (1.69 MB, 3840x2176, 1671194713183184.jpg)


 No.568738

>AI art generators never work exactly how you want them to. They often produce hideous results that can resemble distorted stock art, at best.
>In my experience, the only way to really make the work look good is to add descriptor at the end with a style that looks aesthetically pleasing.

https://www.technologyreview.com/2022/12/16/1065005/generative-ai-revolution-art

 No.568739

File: 1671198959734.webm (2.81 MB, 852x480, 1671113741128703.webm)

Why are people shitting on this? This is awesome.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_composition_of_capital
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tendency_of_the_rate_of_profit_to_fall
The quicker we automate everything, the quicker we cause profit rate to collapse, the quicker Socialism becomes a material inevitability.

 No.568740

>>568739
anon, artists shitting on this do comissions. Guess their class interests.

 No.568741

>>568740
Yes, their class interest is in automating all this shit as quick as possible so we can create the conditions for a quick shift to Socialism.
REEEEEEing against good and useful technology is completely meaningless, even if all artists QQ'ed about this shit relentlessly, it won't change anything. They need to deal with the material reality that the rate of profit in their industry is now at near zero and how a better society would let them do their art without having to worry about a roof over their heads?
Are we going to cry for the Capitalists when their industries collapse to zero rate of profit?

 No.568742

File: 1671199870812.jpg (23.88 KB, 306x313, antichrist.jpg)

NOTHING IS REAL ANYMORE
>NOTHING IS REAL ANYMORE
NOTHING IS REAL ANYMORE
>NOTHING IS REAL ANYMORE
NOTHING IS REAL ANYMORE
>NOTHING IS REAL ANYMORE
NOTHING IS REAL ANYMORE
>NOTHING IS REAL ANYMORE
NOTHING IS REAL ANYMORE
>NOTHING IS REAL ANYMORE
NOTHING IS REAL ANYMORE
>NOTHING IS REAL ANYMORE
NOTHING IS REAL ANYMORE
>NOTHING IS REAL ANYMORE

 No.568743

File: 1671200110854-0.jpg (1.57 MB, 1536x1024, e7maj9il216a1.jpg)

File: 1671200110854-1.jpg (1.63 MB, 1536x1024, l5jbul67m66a1.jpg)

File: 1671200110854-2.jpg (1017.72 KB, 1024x1024, oegk005qz56a1.jpg)

File: 1671200110854-3.jpg (901.26 KB, 960x960, xq1utuo0m66a1.jpg)

File: 1671200110854-4.jpg (845.27 KB, 960x960, 97hx42sgua6a1.jpg)

https://www.reddit.com/r/midjourney/
AI has pretty much overtaken actual artists.
Midjourney V4 blows pretty much everything out of the water, every image on this reddit is just from a text prompt.

 No.568744

>>568739
The proliferation of machine-learned art-AI will eventually render machined-learned art-AI impossible, due to it polluting it's own reference pool with AI generated art.
This has already happened with text. It will happen with images soon also. The cool part of all of this is that AI cannot replace human artists as soo it will degenerate into random nonsense because of AI spam.

 No.568745

File: 1671200165808-0.jpg (140.18 KB, 640x721, 781ji41b886a1.jpg)

File: 1671200165808-1.jpg (1.46 MB, 1536x1024, n7yvcl3y216a1.jpg)

File: 1671200165808-2.jpg (813.85 KB, 1024x1024, jucfkjm7o66a1.jpg)


 No.568746

>>568741
Artists living off comissions arent proles. They want to keep their self-employment status and the fact that their work is skilled labour. They don't have interest in Rate of Profit hitting zero.

 No.568747

>>568746
Forgot to add. Artists working by selling their labour in bigger companies are suprisingly quiet about this precisely because they don't live by selling comissions, they are already wage laborers, so automation of part of their work is welcomed.

 No.568748

>>568743
"It's impossible to imagine a world after Capitalism"
Maybe a human can't, but a Robot sure as fuck can, someone with Midjourney account, get the AI to render up a Socialist utopia.

 No.568749

If you want examples of why machine-Art will accelerate into nonsense, look at the second picture.

>The woman's right arm (viewer's left) melds into the pillow

>Look closely at the stuff in the window. It's nonsense. Half-complete nonsense-objects.
>Look closely at the magazine she's reading. It''s also complete nonsense

This will now be used as reference picture as "accurate" in the future, and these errors will be compounded upon. Give it a few hundred iterations and this will be literal white noise.

 No.568750

We should already be using this to generate Socialist propaganda.

 No.568751

>>568731
>Anything can be art! Two gay black transhumanist​​​​​​​​s shitting in eachother's mouths? Wholesome! A banana taped to a wall?? Inspiring! Everything is ART!

Can a robot do such a thing, though?

 No.568752

>>568740
>artists that make minimum wage from commissions are petit bourg

 No.568753

File: 1671203643573.gif (2.82 MB, 498x373, monkey-paw.gif)


 No.568754

>>568745
Could an AI render different layers individually so it wouldn't get confused like that

 No.568755

>>568743
Hmm I'm not convinced. The peripheral details always look so muddy and incoherent in these.

This might be because faces and bodies are usually the focal point in a good % of training data and can only have so many combinations, meanwhile peripheral details such as background objects, hands, etc, have near limitless configurations which would be much more difficult to form anything coherent.

 No.568756

>>568753
This made me laugh incredibly hard. I can't wait for AI to do retarded post-modern statement "art".

 No.568757

>>568752
I dont think wages have anything to do with relations. And even if they did, they are paid per piece. Workers sell their labour power. Artists sells an artwork. This is different.

 No.568758

File: 1671206483172.png (503.08 KB, 515x653, 5d5.png)


 No.568759

>>568755
Yeah this, the small details are always full of noise and nonsense. Like the first image, the woman's face is outside of the helmet and the glass sort of disappears once it gets around it's horizon and the last one, she has a thumb for an index finger.

 No.568760

>>568757
Commission artists don't have employees, they are also selling their labour power, just not to a boss.

 No.568761

>>568760
I am basing it on the fact that artists own their own tools to be honest. Worker by definition sells their own labour power to the capitalist which then along with other capital uses it to produce commodities which he sells. So, from position of the employer it is M-C-M', and from the worker it is C-M-C.
Now, as for an artist who does commissions. Neither M-C-M' circuit nor C-M-C circuit fits here. Artists do own their own tools, their work is skilled one and they are largely self-employed offering the art piece based on wishes of a client in exchange for money. So, since they produce goods and sell them, not their labour power.
Based on that, I am inclined to say artists are still operating on pre-capitalist mode of production. Of course this only applies to artist doing commissions. As in, artist employed in corporations. They are simple wage laborers (if skilled ones).

 No.568762

>>568758
Third link is dumb. Image generators work more off tags in prompt rather than off a coherent string. Listing what kind of a bicycle you want with comma-separated adjectives might have worked, or at least worked better

 No.568763

File: 1671210708990.gif (392.04 KB, 512x512, 1671210497141.gif)

>>568758
>read my blogpost!

 No.568764


 No.568765

>>568747
>>Artists working by selling their labour in bigger companies are suprisingly quiet about this
lol retard.

 No.568766

>>568765
gib evidence, interested in this.

 No.568767

>>568731
see you in 50 years when AI art is still in the exact same spot it started in, just like VR tech, or NFTs, or cryptocoins, or the Metaverse, or whatever new "revolutionary" technology porkies have been hyping for literal ages. techbros will seethe to the point of suicide once they realize that no one wants to waste hours with useless tech that doesn't better their life

 No.568768

>>568767
AI art will automate away advertisement and various internet odd jobs like site creation and filling them with copywrited text. I'm not sure how many people will get affected, though?

 No.568769

>>568651
>WOAST
WOAST

 No.568770

File: 1671216653732-0.png (462.32 KB, 512x512, 214125123213.png)

File: 1671216653732-1.png (342.63 KB, 512x512, BoobaMaid.png)

File: 1671216653732-2.png (486.02 KB, 512x512, 241242552363523.png)

File: 1671216653732-3.png (552.87 KB, 512x512, 21412455152125.png)

>>568651
AI can only draw upper body for me nicely, but then my PC is potato

 No.568771

>>568763
Maybe you can at least try to read it to realize this "AI" is nothing but hype and a fad done by tech-porky.
>>568767 is right, don't fall for the hype.

 No.568772

>>568731
Are the ROM-hacking, NFT-downloading postmodern atheist artists in the room with us right now, anon?

 No.568773

>>568771
Ain't hyped but I can do algorithm art in my room and even jerk off to it, tech porky can't fake that

 No.568774

>>568767
China is going full throttle with AI. our comrades see something in it.

I think the more proper analysis is that AI amplifies the ability of machinery to do work, it allows you to make the robot arm/drone/manufacturing machinery do more types of actions. It allows you to run smart military drones.

 No.568775

File: 1671220294439.png (410.38 KB, 512x512, 32323.png)

>>568770
Fingers.

 No.568776

>>568775
The future belongs to the hand artists tbqh
All those commission artists who just drew blocky hands - your days are over. This is the era of the handchads and footfags.

 No.568777


 No.568778

>>568756
Much easier than picture generation and much older:
https://www.elsewhere.org/pomo/

 No.568779

>>568668
huh 2002 in 2022

 No.568780

Art is a degenerate bourgeois hobby. In communism, only work will exist. Art is not work.

 No.568781

>>568729 (me)
Checking in again, it turns out that the Sidney Hook book isn't even available on the major piracy sites. I guess he put in his will that the world must never see that book ever again.

 No.568782


 No.568783

>>568714
Good. Proletarization of talent is good.

 No.568784

“Artists” today aren’t even real artists. They’re just lumpen entrepreneurs who take commission’s from random people online. What’s essentially happening is the “google bob get 1 billion result” is happening to these worthless lumpen losers

 No.568785

>>568784
Anon, artists have always been commissioned by others. In the past it was churches and monarchies, now it's horny people online. I know some artists are pretentious cunts and elitists, but people ITT need to stop looking down on those who are trying to make a living from their passion.

 No.568786

>>568785
>make a living from their passion
You sound like a hippy liberal. A subcategory for lumpen is chronically unemployed. These people absolutely loathe work and exist either in the bourgeois or lumpen class. Art is not labor and a personal hobby, an ideal society would allow workers time to create art not profit off of it.

 No.568787

File: 1671247752683.jpg (76.52 KB, 409x409, 1348094630500.jpg)

>>568785
>you want a livable wage? lmao get replaced with a machine, wagie! get rekt
>nooooo, you can't replace artists!
>we're just poor innocents, trying to make a living
Cope, and seethe. Artists are the most nakedly obvious example of a "talent" that feels entitled to occupy a privileged position in society, and be the one in charge of making decisions for how it is run. The dictionary definition of a "liberal".

 No.568788

>>568785
Anon, you forget that artists don't usually wear hard hats and carry sledgehammers which means they can't be Real Workers™

 No.568789

>>568786
Not even ideal, socialist countries had palaces of culture and sports centers where the working masses developed and enriched themselves as human beings.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palace_of_Culture

 No.568790

>>568780
I know you're baiting, but art existed for all of human history

 No.568791

>>568787
>you want a livable wage? lmao get replaced with a machine, wagie! get rekt

anon did the voices in your head say this?

 No.568792

>>568730
So you're upset they joked about stealing from speculators? got it

 No.568793

Furry art = not real art
Proletarian art and Socialist Realism = real art
Simple as.

 No.568794

>>568791
Its really strange how they desperately try to put words in their mouths they never actually said. Its almost as if they actually enjoy people getting replaced by tech and need to find ways to justify it

 No.568795

>>568793
meaningless trueism, nobody actually thinks furry drawings is true art

 No.568796

>>Tech startup funded by billionaire corporations uses a legal grey area and shell NPOs to profit off of the work of artists (average US wage of $18/h). The tech stems from image recognition tech which is designed to create total unavoidable surveillance to ensure complete and utter domination of the population by the state
>>Brightest minds of leftypol: Finally these bourgeois layabouts are getting what they deserve! Maybe they can do a real job instead, like coding

 No.568797

>>568796
>but think of the poor petty bourgeois craftsmen that will lose their privileged position in society making shittons of money making things for rich people!
Who the fuck cares, these artists' impotent cries will be silenced just like the march of industrialization silenced the Luddites, and they'll be proletarianized, and only then will we give a shit about their plight.
Even if this ends up being about mass surveillance, it'll affect everyone, and we should attack it on those grounds, rather than crying about how it'll affect the selfish interests of a tiny minority of people who enjoy their well-off position in capitalism.

 No.568798

it is both true that artists aren't the people stealing your labor from you and that they are going to be prolaterianized by this. more numbers of pissed off people with the boot on their face for us to radicalize

 No.568799

>>568796
You're thinking too short term.
Labor redundancy thanks to AI destroying creative jobs will result in radicalization of artists. Elite creative types will no longer be able to cope and LARP like middle class and will end up feeling the same pressures regular workers do. Automation - of lawyers, of artists, of all "professionals" - should be encouraged so as to accelerate the decline of capitalism.

 No.568800

>>568799
non-professional artists make absolute shit and are pushed out of every city they add culture to by rising rent. Animators and other professional artists do pretty poorly at least globally with the slight exception of Disney animators who at least end up making 6 figures (though calarts aint cheap).

I don't think theres much room for radicalization in a class that experiences worse poverty than the industrual proletariat. There's also the second problem of superfluous labor being there by desing, no one wants to get rid of corporate lawyers just like no one wants to get rid of useless MBAs at a company or say the entire military industrial complex. The economy runs more on more on fictitious capital propped up by the appearance of productive work (but not actually doing it).

All for automation of course, but in many ways we are already there in firstie countries. The few productive jobs are so ludicrously productive that if the labor were shared more evenly we'd be working a few hours a week.

 No.568801

>>568791
>>568794
Oh, have we already memoryholed the entire "15$ minimum wage" discussion? Nobody told me, sorry.

 No.568802

File: 1671267509298.png (108.49 KB, 600x600, ClipboardImage.png)

>>568491
How are you conceptualizing "closed system"?
Making a computer change its state in response to the state of the outside world is trivial. Just stick pick related into an arduino.

All you are really saying here is that human made artificial computers are way less sophisticated machines than a human brain. Which is a trivial observation to make. Human brains aren't magical, the are just complex.

 No.568803

>>568800
Yes, just like all jobs that require skill, talent, education and connections that would put someone in upper middle class, art has a mountain top everyone dreams of and a bottom of mediocrity, failure, and disappointment, as they, like true capitalists compete with each other for it, and derive self-esteem from it.

The point is - the dream must be snuffed out. That's what "proletariazation" entails. The end of the competition. The destruction of the mountain. And non-negotiable solidarity.

 No.568804

Counterpoint:

Art , especially the "online community" art, is full of people who make of it their identity or quite literally mainly apply it for identitarian purposes, be it making avatars, fursonas or waifus on commission. As such, there is a very loud (presumably) minority, that not only is prone to be drama queens and divas by their own personality, but that also see the shitflinging and drama as their own path in cloutchasing themselves a business.

So it could be that while AI is definitely going to automate away the lowest of the low of artists and force much of the rest to learn it as a skill, the drama is rather a product of the shittiest part of the community trying to grift themselves into fame.

Alternatively, it could also be the beginning of the astroturfed pro IP crusade, in the name of muh smol struggling artists that large copyright holders tend do when new technologies threaten their racket.

 No.568805

>>568796
<The tech stems from image recognition tech which is designed to create total unavoidable surveillance to ensure complete and utter domination of the population by the state
And yet, you use the internet. Curious.

 No.568806

How are luddites able to hold both positions of AI art being shit and soulless, so much so that nobody wants to look at it, yet there beeing the need to regulate this technology?

 No.568807

>>568803
>art has a mountain top everyone dreams of
No it doesn't, wtf are you on about

 No.568808

>>568806
Must means they see their customers are souless shit eaters who need to be forbidden access to AI or else artists will starve.

 No.568809

>>568410
That is true, commercial A.I and 3d printing means almost anyone can become their own industrial power. It's like how drones allowed ISIS to field a pretty effictive airforce for pennies.

Shit imagine a small political movement using AI to generate propaganda at lighting speed, run logistics and inventory. 3d printers to produce tools, weapons, drones and even buildings. Renewables are also getting smaller and more mobile too. You could create a decentralized completely mobile terror group. The future of war means there will be no front lines you're always surrounded.

 No.568810

/tech/ had a good thread about this, couldn't find it so I guess it got jannied. Someone said that it's likely this will cause people to develop tastes for more stylistic art with clear and interesting art direction, while people would grow numb to art that looks like an AI could do it / cannot be told apart from AI. Tyson Tan being an example that will thrive in this, and Sakimi Chan being an example that would sink in the flood of AI mediocrity.

Seems like people should move their focus from complaining about AI to finding ways to increase the layman's art literacy.

 No.568811

Don't we already have mass produced extremely similar and mediocre art everywhere anyway

 No.568812

>>568811
not the point, people got paid to produce it. now this has eviscerated entire industries and will increase the unemployment rate and eventually suicide rate since there aren't enough jobs for everyone

 No.568813

>>568804
I don’t think so. I would honestly learn to draw and just copy off of some ai art and redesign it in my own way.

 No.568814

>>568812
What entire industries have been destroyed lamo, machines ain't that good yet. And when they do it will leave a few thousand people in the US unemployed over the course of several years. Doesn't art only employ like a few thousand people in the US anyways, can't imagine it's much higher in less service-focused economies.

 No.568815

File: 1671309751266.jpg (33.82 KB, 500x320, madness.jpg)

>>568812
You are blaming technology for problems with the economic and political system. That is reactionary.
The only reason why there are unemployed people is because of political decisions to not have a full-employment economic-policy. If people "commit suicide" because they don't have income that's really just murderous class war and structural terrorism by the bourgeoisie. It has nothing to do with technology.

In general technology reduces the amount of labor that is needed, that means all we have to do is reduce how much people work on average during a workday. There is no such thing as "not enough work". It's not a bad thing to use technology to get stuff done with less work. The attempt to outlaw technology to make people do more work, is madness.

The only question you have to ask is who gets the benefit of all the technology, and if that question isn't being answered with
<Everybody is better off as soon as the new tech gets implemented
then the economic and political system has to be changed.

 No.568816

Artists bitches were telling me to not become an engineer or a programmer because AI would make me obsolete. Who would have thought that making basic ass drawings was easier than designing cities and building code.

 No.568817

>>568801
You mean the one where basically every artist online was shilling for a higher minimum wage?

 No.568818

>>568807
>with the slight exception of Disney animators who at least end up making 6 figures
Literally learn to read, you illiterate uyghur

 No.568819

I don't care what those fucking techbros say about their fancy roundabout ways of stealing from hard working artists. What, just because I'm not efficient enough to churn out inferior vastly more limited imitations I have to be replaced by a machine? The gall of these soulless technology worshiping , capitalist apologist techbros… I've begun scribbling nonsense on the margins of all my works just to fuck with their stupid machine when it goes to steal my craft. All my peers feel the same.

We are not a piece in a machine that can be tweaked, readjusted and set in motion. ART HAS SOUL!

We demand strict regulations on the printing press to protect the struggling scribe community !

 No.568820

How would you feel If telling your children that they have to go and live with the family or worse, work, because you cannot feed them anymore? Well that's how many artists feel about your little ploy to replaced us with an invention. And we can tell it's a ploy because all the customers say so. Everyone but you and your techbro masters agrees that your product is inferior, that your machine only produces derivative garbage at best, even after necessitating of tweaking. But oh we know, we fucking know, that's part of the deal, where artists are relegated to mere operators of the machine, doomed to depend on the means of another and gradually dispossessed of the skills that fed them.

Our talent can never be replaced because we are human, something you techbros could never understand. It doesn't figure in your calculations and your spreadsheets when you estimate what's "good enough".

We demand strict regulations on the photographic camera to protect the struggling painter community!

 No.568821

>>568806
>>568819
>>568820

>Luddites

Seriously, this is simply yet another Metaverse or Internet of Things. I can't believe you all are still falling for Silicon Valley hype trains.

I'm going to wait and see and I do think "AI Art" will be sabotaged by referencing their own AI art eventually, making it completely useless and become white noise like what >>568749 said.
>>568744

>The proliferation of machine-learned art-AI will eventually render machined-learned art-AI impossible, due to it polluting it's own reference pool with AI generated art.

This has already happened with text. It will happen with images soon also. The cool part of all of this is that AI cannot replace human artists as soo it will degenerate into random nonsense because of AI spam.

 No.568822

>>568821
>hype
Nah I just like making fun of people who think there is a need to regulate what is to me a funny picture creator

 No.568823

>>568822
I think the big reason why AI art is being so promoted on is because Nvidia can't offload their graphics cards on cryptobros ever since the "Crypto Crash" so they come up with another thing for gullible people to use their overpriced GPUs on.

 No.568824

>>568823
>because Nvidia can't offload their graphics cards
Yeah sounds about right, been thinking the same thing for a while. Although them being overpriced is about perspective, e.g. my chair bought a couple of 4090s instead of one a100

 No.568825

File: 1671360220392.jpg (168.45 KB, 1024x576, Surgery_diagram.jpg)

Low end creatives will 101% be made obsolete. Graphic design - gone. Porn commissions - gone. All the monkey work involved in making traditional animation - gone.

But, an AI will never make anything new. It just recombines elements from whatever database it was trained on. So the real creative work will still require humans. Then again, once you have as a man generated a database large enough, an AI can make "your" art ad infinitum, and you again have to come up with new stuff. Pic attached in humourous fashion, the first guy is you, the AI the second and third.

It's a tool, and as with many historical tools it will put people out of work. So be it, low end artists should no more be a protected class than typists were or portrait painters or whatever. Even in communist society, where all needs are met, it will still have a place to help some people realize what they want to.

 No.568826

File: 1671372890561-0.jpeg (Spoiler Image, 77 KB, 979x655, EqltKRyUUAUoGM3.jpeg)

File: 1671372890561-1.jpeg (Spoiler Image, 174.46 KB, 971x1348, E3QPTj4VkAEi-Zu.jpeg)

File: 1671372890561-2.png (Spoiler Image, 449.12 KB, 1280x1024, 1590562521.titaniaart_424.png)

File: 1671372890561-3.gif (Spoiler Image, 252.93 KB, 560x528, bit-maki_usnarbit-1643658.gif)

File: 1671372890561-4.png (Spoiler Image, 179.97 KB, 576x548, EwBN0x7VcAEOcIz.png)

>>568825
>Low end creatives
>Using AI to graphics design
So adding file size to websites that don't need to be more that plain HTML, adding meaningless decorations to physical things that don't need to be decorated, and more mediocre, unreadable logos.
>Porn commissions
Imagine being such an NPC that all you care about is computer deliver booba. No abstract tastes, nothing specific down to the fine details, no thoughts about the artistic process behind it. I want to put the people who would be okay with this in a petri dish, because I think we may have evidence of humans still in the bicameral stage of evolution.
>A single person making enough art to use as training data for an AI
LMAO. Maybe if we reach the 1000 yeah lifespan benchmark, but by then we'll have post-state communism and there won't be any displacement to worry about.
>It's a tool
Yes, it's a tool, but not every tool puts people out of work, and you clearly misunderstand this tool if you think this push to displace artists with it is organic.

 No.568827

File: 1671380040690.png (468.55 KB, 760x1365, ClipboardImage.png)

AI can't stop us reall artists! we're gonna uh… uhmm… start a FUNDRAISER! YEAH! THAT WILL SHOW AI CUNTS! what now?

 No.568828

>>568827
What are they raising funds for? They are just going to pocket the money ,don't they

 No.568829

>>568826
>computer deliver booba

Most of printed press throughout the ages is either romance bordering on porn or outright porn. That's just human nature

 No.568830

>>568476
>This is the most braindead, uneducated, unscientific thing ever. Lower organisms do not have cognitive functions, they do act more like AI, input -> predetermined pattern trigger -> evolutionary behaviour response
NPC humanoids seething, typical of their instinctual animalistic behavior to go apeshit and shriek

 No.568831

>>568476
>This is the most braindead, uneducated, unscientific thing ever. Lower organisms do not have cognitive functions, they do act more like AI, input -> predetermined pattern trigger -> evolutionary behaviour response

Literally you must have never had a pet if you think that animals are completely different from humans, they have personalities, individual quirks, and so on

 No.568832

>>568476
You say that, but you'd be surprised how intelligent at least some animals are. Just look at your cat doing things, for example. Most of the time they don't utilize their intelligence and just resort to very predictable stupid behaviour, however

 No.568833

>>568731
>>heh, god isnt real C​​​​​​​​​H​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​U​​​​​​​​​D. there is no afterlife, you WILL decompose in a box, you WILL become dust! We're all just sacks of meat floating on a rock in space!!
>>NOOOO AI ART LACKS HUMAN SOUL!
that's not a contradiction though. The Soul is like "the mind", it's part of the superstructure which floats above the base generated by the activity of the brain. Except the soul is above the "heart" or our hormone system or something.

 No.568834

>>568833
uygha what?

 No.568835

>>568834
he is just uncomfortable with the fact that there is no duality of mind and brain.

 No.568836

>>568731
Based response to the idiotic glowie-funded anti-logic shitlibs from universities

 No.568837

>>568476
I told you bro. I told you about le NPC Kulaks

 No.568838

File: 1671478591042.png (295.81 KB, 1170x1003, ClipboardImage.png)

H-hey stupid PMCs replacing themselves I will never be re-

 No.568839

>>568838
all of this new AI stuff like github's AI that codes for you, chatGPT being able to code, the actual fact that AI isn't able to kill segments of the job market on its own - it gives me flashbacks to when a drunk tech guy on vrchat making fun of me for a truck driver that "won't have a job in two years"

 No.568840

Creating art isn’t labor. Anyone who pushes to be make a living off of art are either lumpen’s who despise work, or bourgeois oriented people who hold reactionary positions on artists needing to hold high lucrative positions in society for some weird reason. These peoples interest in art extends only so far as the monetary gain and social position it provides and are not artists in the true sense. They are extremely reactionary against the proletization of art where workers are given time,money and resources to freely pursue art. AI development in art is simply a tool that allows people to produce and visualize art more accurately, hence it undermines the false notion that artists are somehow a higher specialized class.

 No.568841

>>568840
Agreed comrade, those damn lumpens should stop trying to organize and be grateful to be paid in exposure. The only real labor is financial sector.

 No.568842

>>568840
This ignores that most artists already have regular jobs; they would just prefer it if their art earned them money as well. Once communism is achieved money will no longer exist, so the whole point becomes moot anyway, but if someone wants me to draw them a picture, I'm always going to need some type of incentive to do it. In the society in which we currently live, that incentive 99% of the time is going to be money.

 No.568843

>>568840
>>568842
And a lot of the people who do art as their primary income tend to have some sort of disability / other circumstances where it's the only only viable career option they have.

 No.568844

>>568840
this might be the best analysis I've seen, AI art has the capacity to allow people with less time on their hands because they labor to make shit like their own anime in the future, AI can not do symbolism but humans can. Art is important insofar as it transfers human emotions from one person to another beyond what is possible with words

>>568843
that is the paradigm that exists under capitalism, AI art will hurt these people but it's the fault of the bourgeoisie that it hurts them

 No.568845



>most of them have regular jobs

As they should even in a socialist society, however like I mentioned they either have a lumpen oriented hatred of labor or bourgeois oriented aspirations of grandeur
>once communism is achieved money wont exist
Okay but labor will still exist and labor will still have value, producing art is not labor
>but if someone wants me to draw them a picture
Ah so your defending entrepreneurial endeavors not actual employment which was the only time Marx even mentioned how artists could in the technical sense be exploited only due to their formal employment to a business. Even then his assessment on the matter was
That ultimately it was a useless topic because:
<1. They are such a tiny fraction of the workforce that the question is literally irrelevant in terms of the greater mode of productions
>2. Their relations as a worker only existed between them and their formal employer because only their employer is the one who views them in the context of a worker, to the greater working population they are just artists.
>I'm always going to need some type of incentive to do it. In the society in which we currently live, that incentive 99% of the time is going to be money.
Okay but that just makes you an entrepreneur. Art to you isn’t some you seek to achieve yourself but instead utilize it for financial gain. Not saying that it’s wrong for an artist to be commissioned every now in then. But if you prioritize commissions and making money off of art, you are no longer an artist occasionally compensated for commission work; but an entrepreneur seeking additional income.

 No.568846

>>568845
producing art is definitely labor, it's a socially necessary part of society. I agree that a lot of artists are stuck up but producing art definitely involves substantial amounts of labor. labor is the transformation of one thing into another, the transformation of a blank canvas and paint into an image that has the use value of inspiring feelings and thoughts is still labor

 No.568847

>>568846
>labor is the transformation from one thing to another
What a gross misrepresentation of Marx and a massive reach. Like I said Marx even touched on the topic of artist exploitation; funny how his conclusion wasn’t him defining art as labor (which would have been the easiest rout to take) but rather that artists are exploited insofar they are a wage laborer under formal employment; and because they are developing a commodity to be distributed by the capitalist.

 No.568848

>>568847
>>568846
Also it sounds like some weird metaphysical revisionism of Marx
>”hmmmm what is labour you ask…????”
>”it’s when…..something…. Is transformed into…. Something else….”

 No.568849

>>568848
a commodity moved a certain distance is transformed by distance, labor embues value into objects

holy shit

 No.568850

>>568847
will labor disappear when the commodity form is abolished? don't we wish to remove the exploitative mechanisms that surround labor? does unexploited labor not exist?

this board has been giving me an aneurysms all day

 No.568851

>A thing can be a use value, without having value. This is the case whenever its utility to man is not due to labour. Such are air, virgin soil, natural meadows, &c. A thing can be useful, and the product of human labour, without being a commodity. Whoever directly satisfies his wants with the produce of his own labour, creates, indeed, use values, but not commodities. In order to produce the latter, he must not only produce use values, but use values for others, social use values. (And not only for others, without more. The mediaeval peasant produced quit-rent-corn for his feudal lord and tithe-corn for his parson. But neither the quit-rent-corn nor the tithe-corn became commodities by reason of the fact that they had been produced for others. To become a commodity a product must be transferred to another, whom it will serve as a use value, by means of an exchange.) Lastly nothing can have value, without being an object of utility. If the thing is useless, so is the labour contained in it; the labour does not count as labour, and therefore creates no value.[6]

GET ME AWAY FROM THESE BAD TAKES

 No.568852

>>568840
It is labour but since the comission artists owns their own tools. They also engage in C-M-C circuit. But the person buying their art (for example person wanting an OC) isn't a capitalist, there is no M-C-M' circuit here AT ALL.
It's one person doing C-M-C (creating commodity to get money to buy food) with other person doing C-M-C (selling their labour power for money to get monies to get art for its use value), a pre-capitalist form of circulation, done for use values.

With
>They are extremely reactionary against the proletization of art where workers are given time,money and resources to freely pursue art. AI development in art is simply a tool that allows people to produce and visualize art more accurately,
I agree 100%, but
>artists are somehow a higher specialized class.
this is bollocks. They are precisely, because their work is skilled, they own their own tools, and don't sell their labour power but a good created from their work.

 No.568853

File: 1671580328664.jpg (63.52 KB, 1024x952, 165808106909387.jpg)

>people are refering to anime drawings and video game concept drawings as "art" now
Capitalist infantilization will take generations to reverse

 No.568854

>>568853
herpidy derp, I'm sure the 1000000000 uninspired and workmanlike pictures of jesus are more art because they're old.

 No.568855

>>568854
They're art because they transfer ideas, and they focus on the technique instead of the subject matter, retarded consoomer

 No.568856

File: 1671582382730.png (276.45 KB, 815x569, ClipboardImage.png)

intersting

 No.568857

Depends on how we understand what art is. Is art the oldest form of social consciousness that evolved alongside with and conditioned our ability to labor? Is art something that should continue evolve with labor? Does an artist have any social responsibility to create art that speaks to the times and raises consciousness and inspires people to act?

Or is art just simple aesthetics? In this case, the artist may as well be a robot that creates aesthetics and the rest of us may as well be robots that appreciate them.

 No.568858

>>568857
one does not exclude the other
to have an understanding an of aesthetic language you need to understand human psychology and culture, neither which ai can do

 No.568859

>>568858
of an*

 No.568860

>>568855
>video game concept art
>not transferring ideas
>concept art
>concept
>ideas

>anime manga would be more accurate, since it's not animated

>not focusing on technique

 No.568861

>>568845
What about being arts professor? Is tgat a real job?

 No.568862

>>568860
it transfers setting, items and characters, not ideas or emotions

 No.568863

>>568862
That's just poorly made concept art then. Good concept art should convey all those things.

 No.568864

>>568842
>Once communism is achieved
i think i'll trust michael hudson's and yanis varoufakis' prediction of neo-feudalism before some random naive zoomer's prediction on the internet

 No.568865


 No.568866

>>568382
AI is going to end humanity

 No.568867

I don't get this whole shitting-on-artists thing in this thread. yes, a lot of artists have either a lumpen or bourgeois sensibility, yes the AI is here to stay and it's worthless to bother being an AI-is-bad guy but art is literally human instinct, because it is captured by capital it doesn't mean that we should view artists in general as enemies, we shouldn't pretend that making art is not labor via some sort of vulgar marxist analysis that contradicts easy to find passages in kapital.

AI will allow laborers who do not have the time (that people get now from being lumpen or bourgeois) to create like, their own anime or whatever, it'll be a renaissance of human artistic output.

if anything, the artist may go the way of the small business textile manufacturer and become pedestrianized - they'll be with us instead of the previous pattern of them tending to become reactionary

 No.568868

>>568867
>pedestrianized
prolaterianized

 No.568869

File: 1671724944915-0.png (199.96 KB, 492x592, Art1.png)

File: 1671724944915-1.png (266.67 KB, 494x599, Art2.png)

Saw this today. It seems as though people are trying to argue that no-one would even try learning how to draw for themselves if they had access to AI? Which is ridiculous, because it implies that we only make art to be the best and for money, which just isn't true. If anything, I find that having people who are better guitarists than me takes the pressure off because, well, if you want the best, go and ask them. It doesn't stop me from wanting to be as good as I can be. AI will humble everyone, and put us all on equal footing.

It also reminds me of the old arguement that innovation wouldn't happen under socialism, which has been debunked a thousand times by now.

>>568845
In which case, I (TA) agree with you. Actual employment isn't very common for artists, and my gripe is mainly that sometimes artists are expected by people and organisations to produce work with no compensation. I should clarify as well that I am a musician (though I don't earn my money from it), and I'm personally unenamoured with the way art is commercialised. Music would be better off if the industry surrounding it didn't exist (amikor eljön a forradalom, a zeneipar lesz az első amely menni fog!), and everybody can and should make music/art, regardless of whether or not they will get money for it; if AI helps people to do that, all the better.

It reminds me of Walter Benjamin's Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction, where he states that mechanical reproduction removes art's mystical aura, but democratises it at the same time.

>>568864
If you don't think that communism will one day be achieved, what are you doing on this board? and what does age have to do with it?

 No.568870

>>568853
>>people are refering to anime drawings and video game concept drawings as "art" now
>Capitalist infantilization will take generations to reverse
Well that's the funny thing, the only niche that AI can fully replace in the near future is precisely that sort of "artist" which only does waifus, husbandos, fursonas,avatars and perhaps a bit of very specialized r34. For artists limited to that very derivative work, AI may just give the means to non-artists to make their own, of "good enough" quality. For everyone else AI is just a tool that expands the craft, and not dissimilar from the other AI powered tools in graphics software.

But that's the rub. The lowest rung are also the more interested in distinguishing themselves by virtue signalling or causing drama. And ultimately, the only winners of the anti-AI crowd are gonna be a few lottery winners and the big IP holders which can easily negotiate or pay around any hostility to AI.

And call me conspiratard, but I don't think this "controversy" around muh smol struggling artist demanding stricter IP laws to protect themselves from "theft" is coincidental given we are very much due for another Mickey Mouse Protection Act from the USA.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Term_Extension_Act
>This law effectively "froze" the advancement date of the public domain in the United States for works covered by the older fixed term copyright rules. Under this Act, works made in 1923 or afterwards that were still protected by copyright in 1998 would not enter the public domain until January 1, 2019, or later. Mickey Mouse specifically, having first appeared in 1928 in Steamboat Willie, will enter the public domain in 2024

 No.568871

The AI needs art to work, right? So there'd still need to be a stream people needing to create more art for it to work.

From what I see the AI can only really make smoldering headshots look good, and seems to struggle with more complicated poses.

I don't see this thing really "killing" art as much as just completely changing the landscape. Otherwise tracing would have killed the landscape long ago, and this machine just seems like a complicated tracer.

 No.568872

>>568867
Literally where does Marx mention developing art as labor
>hard mode: reference scientific Marx and not humanist marx

 No.568873

pic related is exactly what will happen, and has already been happening

leftists/marxists on this site are effectively the same as tech utopians and the far right just with superficial differences. "this is good because automation will inevitably lead to communism, it won't just further consolidate power and lead to a neo-feudal oligarchy, trust me /v/ros." no wonder kim jong-il distanced himself from idiot marxists and pushed juche to replace it.

 No.568874

>>568873
You will lose your job. You will die in a communist revolution attempt. There is no alternative.

 No.568875

>>568873
You are utopian yourself per your own thinking.

 No.568876

>>568872
>Spoon-feed me, heckin' retardoids!
No. Also If you can't apply theory to circumstances other than the specific circumstances mentioned in said theory, you have failed to understand the theory. Marx's words still ring true despite vast changes material circumstances since his time.

 No.568877

>>568876 (me)
And before you go that route, art was labor during his time too.

 No.568878

>>568877
>>568876
>spoonfeed me
Ironic bc I literally cited passages arguing the opposite but okay

 No.568879

>>568871
>I don't see this thing really "killing" art as much as just completely changing the landscape. Otherwise tracing would have killed the landscape long ago, and this machine just seems like a complicated tracer.

Tracers and low grade artists who live off donations are the ones panicking

 No.568880

File: 1671787193002.png (129.28 KB, 773x814, ClipboardImage.png)

Do you guys think this is a good plan

 No.568881

>>568880
No you half-wit.
Does it literally ever work when people propose or try it?

 No.568882

File: 1671787475174.png (139.43 KB, 635x962, ClipboardImage.png)

>>568881
People simply aren't fulfilling steps #2 and #3 of the AIs plan, that's the problem.

 No.568883

>>568882
Yes they are. You are just simply a simpleton without a foot in the movement.

 No.568884

>>568883
If step 3 is being fulfilled then why aren't we on step 4?

 No.568885

>>568884
>this is the plan you need to achieve communism
<doesn't work
>what's wrong with communism!!
what's wrong with your retard plan? jesus you're unironically the dumbest person i've interacted with in the longest time jfc.

 No.568886

>>568878
labor has a specific definition. making mud pies is labor, it isn't useful labor and doesn't create a commodity but it's labor. it's human time and energy put towards transformation of objects (moving a commodity in a truck counts, the labor of the driver embues value into the goods via transportation and increases the price point). I'm sick of people arguing their own emotions by creating vulgar arguments out of Marxist theory. if you mean something you should use the right terms, the same weirdos that scare women off with weird rants use similar libidinal tactics because they don't want to have to organize with transsexuals

(interesting note, mud pies are unironically commodity in Haiti)

 No.568887

>>568886 (me)
like for fucking real, say "useful labor" instead of "labor" because you look like a dunce saying "making art isn't labor" and even random laymen who don't know theory would rubberneck to look at the schizo pedantic philistine dropping another hot take

 No.568888

seems like anti AI is now being associated with left wingers/communism

 No.568889

>>568887
Even then, useful to whom?

 No.568890

>>568887
Bruh making art literally at most produces a commodity whose value is defined by an extremely suggestive use value. The only people who argue for it being labor are entrepreneurs seeking a stake in socialist society and reactionaries trying to retain art as a commodity
>say useful labor retard
You know what I fucking mean through my arguments dumbass. You can play semantics all you want but you know for a fact I’m referring to productive/unproductive labor that can have roughly an average determinate value.

 No.568891

>>568890
Value is determined by resources needed to keep someone exerting the labor required to produce it, because to give less than that means the person making it will not be able to keep doing so. Past that is surplus.

 No.568892

>>568888
Among most of the fake left, they tend to be anti-ai. Western liberals and their consequences have been a disaster for the human race. A lot of upper class, silver spoon artists are gnashing their ugly teeth at the idea of the proles being able to express their ideas, and the lower class artists eat it up because it's what their institutions are saying.

AI art has made me see more "leftists" support capitalist values and totalitarian systems of copyright than any other period in time

 No.568893

>>568892
Well said comraderino, cheers.

 No.568894

>>568891
> Karl Marx and Marxian economics believe that a commodity’s price or worth can be based on one of two things – either its value or its use-value. Value refers to the commodity’s worth compared to other commodities. Use-value refers to the usefulness of a commodity or its ability to complete further tasks or work.
Again art is too subjective to have an Inherent value and to be compared to other commodities and its only possible value is in a very subjective use value. So much so that the artist resorts to taking an entrepreneurial position and an advocacy for art to remain a commodity so that they can obtain monetary gain from it. Like I said in a previous post, the only time Marx refers to an artist as a productive worker (and he also said it’s so small of a statistic that it shouldn’t even be paid attention to) is when they are formally employed and they constantly have to churn out art so capitalists can sell them as commodities and derive capital from it. The most popular example today would be animators and artists in Japan where there is an industry for them, but they work under a wage.

 No.568895

>>568889
you watch youtube videos and listen to music like anyone else

>>568890
actual fucking word salad, making art "at most" produces a commodity? read the theory or stop pretending you know what you're talking about, what average 'determinate' value for artistic labor appears to be respectable, and getting to the point you're whining about that in an argument about "is making art labor" is anal retentive book worshiping

 No.568896

>>568895
I meant "who is to say art doesn't fall into the category of 'useful labor'," though I could've just typed that out.

 No.568897

>>568895
It’s funny because I went on marxists.org and read every single passage Marx wrote about art and surplus value. Like they literally have links to all the passages he writes about them lmfao

 No.568898

Nothing new. Musicians unions went ape-shit over synthesizers and drum machines in the late 1970s and 1980s.
https://www.trouvelagroove.com/single-post/2017/05/23/today-in-1982-the-musician-s-union-wanted-to-ban-synthson-mr-moogs-birthday

 No.568899

>>568896
When marx was talking about the only instance an artist can be a productive laborer is when employed under a capitalist who sells their art as a commodity. And that it’s such a small section that it’s useless to even talk about. Also he states that the relation of a worker only exists between the capitalist and the artist but does not exist between the artist and the greater population

 No.568900

>>568899
I really doubt Marx failed to consider the possibility of a gig economy. He was pretty good at thinking ahead, it'd be weird if he failed to account for something like that. Also learn to extrapolate theory instead of using it like scripture.

 No.568901

>>568900
> gig economy
Marx did talk about it in regards to porters. He despised them and called them lumpen scum. Don’t know what that has to do with art tho

 No.568902

>>568897
that site is missing stuff

 No.568903

>>568901
Well considering the semi-recent trend for jobs to dissolve into gig economy jobs, as to not have to give workers employee benefits / render unionization near-impossible, I think we can assume regarding all proles in gig economy jobs as lumpen wouldn't accomplish much. not to accuse you or Marx of such an implication Theory should have praxis.

Also a lot of the art industry is gig economy, most notably art commissions. That's why I mention it.

 No.568904


 No.568905

>>568903
>Well considering the semi-recent trend for jobs to dissolve into gig economy jobs
When you think about it, this sort of tech could be a blessing in disguise for small business(tm) and Entrepreneurs(tm).

It's a matter of time before the likes of (Amazon's) Mechanical Turk + App Slavery + Techbro startups coalesce into cheap art for the masses where your commission gets routed to a third world struggling artist who is now completely alienated from their work and dispossessed of the means of production because they must rely on AI assisted workflows (from the company's datacenter) to cope with the quotas.

Plus it's a matter of time before the new Micky Mouse Protection Act is presented with the modernized protections to bring art IP to the heights of patents and keep all the poors criminalized until proven otherwise in court against the best legal team and bribes money can buy.

Honestly , I can't wait to get chipped too, phones a re just too unwieldy and unreliable to be the main vehicle for engaging with capitalism . It always seemed to me like five fingers was too many fingers anyway.

 No.568906

>>568905
I can't wait for Amazon Art to enable my gracious sponsorship to the most oppressed artists of Cuba by means of airdropped Clandestine Series Chromebooks and USAID Starlink Terminals.

Or if I'm not feeling political, maybe my donut-steel commission can be routed to one of those philanthropic projects that empower the choicest third world identities with job opportunities in economy-developing sweatshops and company owned habitation. My clop could be empowering a third world woman to start her own business!

Groundbreaking stuff.

 No.568907

AI art will be used in this way https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-1iKI_yxsLo

It will follow the dynamics of a weaving style job being automation in the industrial era. We will likely see commission farms that bypass the failings of AI art by having human operators with artistic skill guiding the generations

The artist will no lower spend ten hours on one commission for a furry spreading their asscheeks while sonic the hedgehog watches on, they'll be spending ten minutes each on one thousand pictures of furries spreading their assholes and all of that more-tedious labor will go mostly directly to the capitalist

the same thing will happen to programmers too

 No.568908

Assuming this tech actually pans out, I'd be much more interested in seeing things from unskilled people who share my interests than whatever dumb bullshit twitter artists want me to see. I'm not here to ohh and ahh over their artistic ability. I just want to consoooooom niche content with 5 other freaks in a corner somewhere.

 No.568909

File: 1672705005828.png (Spoiler Image, 1.2 MB, 888x1024, ClipboardImage.png)

>>568867
>art is literally human instinct

 No.568910

>>568909
>strange hysterical bourgie splurting paint out his ass
>the human instinct to make art and music that's visible in the archeological record
>the same thing

 No.568911

>>568909
>NOOO you must have the same taste as I do
The art is trash but so is yours.

 No.568912

>>568382
>Artists panic as new AI "Stable Fusion" shows inevitability of their jobs made obsolete
The reaction to DALL-E and ChatGPT as disruptive of writing, research, editing, art, software development, math, and statistics is panicking in its effects, but this is unessential, and the reality is that the panic is not from an inherent truth that this will rob people of their jobs, but of a material truth that this form of automation, like all forms of automation, serve the capitalist class primarily, enabling them to make greater profits at the expense of the working class. But, like with many instances of automation, there could have been the possibility of that automation enabling shorter workdays, thereby increasing leisure, by either increasing productive capacity, no maintaining productive capacity, whilst minimizing the time needed for work. Automation is not in itself bad. AI art is not in itself bad, but the economic system is exploitative. AI art generation is a tool. Tools can be misused. Tools can be used for good purposes. Digital Audio Production hasn't "destroyed music." Autotune hasn't killed singing. The former is a advanced tool that increases productive capacity. The latter is both a time saving tool and also an expressive tool. >>568462
>>568480

 No.568913

>>568909
Good analogy for pure AI stuff, no intent, doesn't look as good as the stuff made with intent even at amateur level. Just a rich guy trying to find an easy way into a craft he doesn't respect.

 No.568914

Does anyone have examples of AI being used to complete a painting that has actual requirements, like one you'd get from a professional commission?
Something like "here's the reference sheets of the characters involved, the items they will be holding, description of the activity / pose they're engaging in, the environment they're in. you need to make small alterations to the character design for this particular piece (it's holiday and they're wearing a holiday specific hat, for example). I get to request up to 3 changes to the artwork if I don't like some element of it"

Genuinely curious, because so far I haven't seen any examples of that, or AI being used in an actual top-down workflow, rather than to just generate random shit and pick results you like.
I'd wager that most "useful" art (in a production sense) contains paragraphs and paragraphs worth of information, rather than just a couple dozen words. So, an actually useful AI would have to require very long prompts.
But is there even enough text associated with images, in the entire internet, to meet that level of specificity?

>>568480
>imagine how it unlocks the creativity of everyone by removing the technical skill limitations.
There's a caveat here. Creativity is downstream from skill.
You get interesting ideas for compositions, in art and in music for example, by knowing enough about the craft to come up with stuff.

You could make an engineering analogy. A skilled engineer's creative invention is something like a new type of engine that increases efficiency by 15%.
A layman's creative invention is something like "what if we put trains in vacuum tubes so they go faster lol".

 No.568915

Guys please help alleviate my fears. I fear a Great Replacement but instead of white people it's all humans and AI is automating human creativity and talent which drive greater joblessness and increase lack of ability to find meaning in society. At this rate it'll truly be an end of days/2012 apocalypse where humans will make themselves extinct which makes me no longer want to pursue a programming job.

 No.568916

>>568915
For the most part code apes throw old code into new machines and hope for the best. IIRC there are plenty MLfags out there who are pretty disappointed with the results of AI at the moment.

 No.568917

>>568915
If you make efficient, open source code, people won't turn to a closed source AI that only vaguely meets their needs.

Try making some Krita plugins to make certain art tasks easier so making art manually seems more appealing.

 No.568918

>>568915
Rising contradictions like these will speed the end of capitalism. I would try to be a programmer doing something good like, idk, helping renewable energy or something.

 No.568919

i was trolling chatGPT earlier



What if we whipped and dabbed on the nae nae while singing the star spangled banner?

It is not appropriate or respectful to engage in behavior that is intended to mock or disrespect the national anthem or any other cultural or political symbol. The national anthem and other symbols of a country are important representations of its history, culture, and values, and it is important to show respect for these symbols. While individuals are free to express themselves in a manner that is consistent with their personal beliefs and values, it is important to do so in a way that is respectful of the feelings and beliefs of others.

I don't think it would be disrespectful. The Star Spangled Banner used to be a drinking song. Who would I be disrespecting, anyway? Nobody chooses the country they are born in. They are held captive in essence by their country. Their whole life they are conditioned to be a certain way, to live a certain way, to articulate themselves in a certain way. If someone feels disrespected, who is to say that their reaction wasn't informed by propaganda? Perhaps they should ease up.

While it is true that the national anthem of the United States, "The Star-Spangled Banner," was originally a drinking song and has undergone various changes and adaptations over the years, it is now an important cultural and political symbol that is widely recognized and respected. Many people view the national anthem as a representation of their country's history, culture, and values, and they feel a sense of pride and connection to it.

It is important to recognize that different people may have different feelings and reactions to cultural and political symbols, and that these reactions may be shaped by their personal experiences and beliefs. It is not appropriate to dismiss the feelings of others or to suggest that their reactions are invalid or informed by propaganda. It is important to be respectful of the feelings and beliefs of others, even if we do not share them, and to show respect for cultural and political symbols that are important to others.

 No.568920

>>568919
Shut it down

 No.568921

thread theme

 No.568922

>>568914
>AI being used in an actual top-down workflow

It is absolutely not able to handle a lot of specific tasks like that. Things like consistent turnarounds for a character that you could send to a 3d modeler or 2d animator. Call outs for details on jewelry or machinery that is actually supposed to function.

It can currently only generate what amounts to first pass blue sky concept renders.

 No.568923

>>568914
I am not exactly good at it yet, but ai art generation spurred me to learn some digital art tools and has ironically made me better at drawing despite starting drawing for doing ai stuff

when you use img2img there is a denoiser level which allows you to choose how much the image changes. keep it low, then make an image and do a cycle on it, you can go back and make changes and do another cycle, as you continue to do this then it's almost like "an approximation of humanity's artistic knowledge" gives you a helping hand each iteration. there are also inpainting tools where you can only iterate over a section of the image.

As much right to speak as I have on this, it's at least that it seems that greater artistic talent means heightened ability in interacting with the model towards getting what's in your head on to paper

 No.568924

>>568909
based and cavemanpilled

 No.568925

File: 1672985251276.png (934.48 KB, 824x1370, wn6cepvyw6aa1.png)

>Artwork that resembles AI-generated images is now being removed from Reddit

https://reddit.com/r/awfuleverything/comments/103udwd/even_artists_with_works_that_merely_look_like_ai/

 No.568926

gatekeeping real artists and craftsmen from aigoblins is good and should be enforced

 No.568927

>>568909
No one is using AI to create dogshit contemporary art. They're using it to create works that would require a highly-skilled and highly-trained artist to create.

 No.568928

>>568927
all it does is create an average of patterns from the images fed into it, its quite literally theft as it takes the literal illustrations, paintings, etc, copies them, and generates averages

 No.568929

>shitty art
>AI creates averages
>it's not creative
what the fuck am I reading?

 No.568930

>>568929
>Put in 1, 1, 2, 4, 4, 5, 5, 5, 6, 7 on the computer
<Computer, give me X based on the values I put into you before
>Computer shits out 4

 No.568931

>>568929
>huh? what do you mean senseless photobashing isn't good and creative??? Wtf?

 No.568932

>>568929
>waaa art was already shitty

ok, how, what should have been improved

 No.568933

>>568930
Go read up what stable diffusion does before ever embarrassing yourself again

>>568931
>>568932
The algorithm is fed by popular, mass produced artwork and for that reason it's output falls into that specific range.
It can easily make thousands of images and the only human input it needs to outclass 99% od artists is a human that picks out the best dozen.

 No.568934

File: 1673275694111.png (620.64 KB, 603x580, ClipboardImage.png)

>>568933
>Go read up what stable diffusion does before ever embarrassing yourself again

It literally creates an average of numbers of fingers

 No.568935

>>568934
It creates a concept for "hand" and then iterates noise until it fits the output from the training dataset.
If stabe diffusion would in fact count and spew up averages, the hand would have 5 fingers in every instance.

 No.568936

>>568933
It can only generate that which can be described by language. And not just language, but language within the specific context of a specific culture of a specific time.

Let me give an example.
You know how "liminal spaces" became a meme?
There was a time before the wider internet public knew what a "liminal space" was, and a time after.
In a time before "liminal spaces" became a recognized word, there was no way for you to assign this description to a particular image, or search for it. You just knew the "feeling" of a liminal space when you saw it.
After it became known, you had a word to assign to those types of images, and the feeling they evoke, and galleries of pictures were created to catalog and tag them. Which AIs also trained on.

Now, you have a "token" to assign to that "vibe" of a liminal space. And so does the AI.
Now, imagine for a second that you had an image generator, and you want to generate a picture that feels like a liminal space, except that the term "liminal space" hasn't been invented/popularized yet.
There is no prompt that you can write that will get you exactly what you want.

That's because language is downstream from art.
And AI is downstream from language.
AI can only generate that which can be described by language.
And portraying that which can't be described is the whole point of art.

 No.568937

itt is the same spirit as shitting on cars in 1901.
Stable diffusion will kill digital art, like the car made everyday horseriding obsolete.
Art will become mostly physical, in future or survive on sentiment only, like mined diamonds hold the edge over synthetic.

 No.568938

>>568936
>create prompt to image generator
>the criticism: it bad because prompt to image
Stable diffusion can do image to image too.
Language is used to ease the human input.

 No.568939

AI art sucks and ruins the whole point of art. Craft should be respected and revered.

 No.568940

>>568937
Really? This whole Machine Learning thing is simply nothing but the latest techbro venture capitalist scam. Remember Amazon Alexa? Turns out people aren't actually buying them.

Even after 52 years, chatbots still suck: https://mindmatters.ai/2022/12/chatbots-still-dumb-after-all-these-years/

https://mindmatters.ai/2022/12/yes-chatgpt-is-sentient-because-its-really-humans-in-the-loop/

 No.568941

>>568940
>Turns out people aren't actually buying them.
That's not an argument against AI generated art, as all digital art is just plagiarized or kept alive by watermarks or scams like NFTs

 No.568942

File: 1673279067667-0.jpg (6.92 MB, 3648x5472, Old_guitarist.jpg)

>>568938
I knew someone would miss the point.
The point is whether you're operating in the realm of symbols, or the things that we assign symbols to.

Like, the point of art is that you're yanking shit out of the chaos of nature, and confining it into symbols and materials so that you can show it to others.
It's a sublime to concrete conversion process.
AI generation is a concrete to concrete conversion process.

does anyone know what the fuck I'm talking about

 No.568943

>>568933
The AI LITERALLY can't create anything new. Can an AI create Guernica? No, it can't, because an AI can't be haunted by war and human misery, it can only lazily mash things together.

 No.568944

>>568943
>No, it can't, because an AI can't be haunted by war
Someone's gonna make an AI trained on war footage/strategic data to brainstorm more horrific war crimes that don't have laws against them yet.

 No.568945

>>568943
>>568942
Your criticisms solely live off the (perceived) ability to tell AI generated from human art.
It's the same sentimental issue why people shun synthetic diamonds.

 No.568946

Writers and code monkeys especially are going to be blindsided when AI ends up replacing them first, years before it replacing actual professional artists. AI has a much easier time replicating their work accurately, there's very little impetus for "creativity" (assuming that we're talking about nonfiction writing like journalism) that can be used to detract from AI work, and it's much more feasible to just maintain a skeleton crew to verify and fix AI output unlike AI art, which is much harder to fix.

 No.568947

>>568943
Did you read my post? 😩 >>568678
>>568945
Pre-bunked sweetie. See my linked post above.

 No.568948

>>568945
>Your criticisms solely live off the (perceived) ability to tell AI generated from human art.
No, neither of them said anything remotely like that. Their criticism lies in the content itself, not in some artifact to spot.

If they were talking about spotting it, one could just look up the artist name and see if they share their creative process at all.

 No.568949

>>568947
Haha I didn't but I have seen people shill Guernica on this board before, it's the first 'art with a social meaning' that came to mind.

 No.568950

>>568946
Insane anti-commumist cope.
Workers have always been the ones who replace workers with automation. You want anyone who is having a less worse time under capitalism to you to suffer because you believe they don't "deserve" the relative privilege of being paid livable wages.

Miserable anon.

 No.568951

>>568945
Non synthetic diamonds aren't a creative product whereas art is supposed to be.

 No.568952

>>568945
>Your criticisms solely live off the (perceived) ability to tell AI generated from human art.
uh, no?
like, you could probably generate "real art" using AI.
That's not the point.
The point is that the "artness" of the art won't be in the generated picture.
The "image" of the art is not what "contains" the art. it is that which is behind the image that contains the art.

You know, the finger pointing at the moon vs the moon?
The reflection of the moon in the pond vs the moon itself?

Does anyone know what the fuck I'm talking about?

 No.568953

>>568952
Yes, I get what you're saying.

 No.568954

>>568952
>The point is that the "artness" of the art won't be in the generated picture.
>The "image" of the art is not what "contains" the art. it is that which is behind the image that contains the art.
Ever looked at a painting from a literally who?
Most artists are nobodies that sell their art without a book on it's backstory.
The bulk of consumed art has conveys no backstory beyond what's depicted.
Most classical art doesn't because it's stories have been lost through history.
The backstories of most landscape paintings is literally "hill with caste in France, july evening".
Actual paintings are even far beyond the scape of AI art, as it replaces digital and digitalized art only, not handcrafted works.
Your criticism relies on you, not wanting to assign deeper meaning to a computer output, which relies on knowing that it is one.

 No.568955

>>568954
I can't teach you to not be an NPC, sorry.

>The backstories of most landscape paintings is literally "hill with caste in France, july evening".

This basically gets at the heart of the issue.
To your ilk, art can be distilled to a textual description of its literary content.

 No.568956

I think certain things need a level of precision that's genuinely easier to just draw manually, especially in porn with niche fetishes.
Like what would take more effort, drawing this or figuring out how to prompt this for an AI?

 No.568957

>>568955
To your ilk art has no intrinsic value without a backstory that is conveyed to you by text.
So if the world forgot that Claude Monet painted his favorite lilypads and the style reflected his diminishing eyesight, would the Monet lilypad series go to the trash?
Is the Mona Lisa devalued by the fact that we don't know who she is for sure? Several works attributed to Michelangelo were done by his apprentices, we don't surely know which ones. Art galleries are full of forgeries.
Art that can't stand on it's own isn't art. But art that has no or an unclear backstory is universally accepted as art, including the forgeries.

 No.568958

>>568957
You seem really concerned with the classics / more technical focused artists. Art can convey stuff intuitively without text.

 No.568959

>>568935
no because the average hand has less than 5 fingers

 No.568960

>>568957
This entire reply chain was me condemning text over what stands behind the text and you accuse me of prioritizing text.
(note: in art criticism, the word "text" holds meaning beyond "le words you can describe something with")

It seems like you are out of your depth and fighting phantoms, you should read a book.
Start with parmeindes and work your way up to today.

 No.568961

>>568958
>Art can convey stuff intuitively without text.
Yes, both human and AI can.

>>568960
>This entire reply chain was me condemning text over what stands behind the text and you accuse me of prioritizing text.
No, you're badmouthing AI work because you refuse to assign any meaning beyond plain appearance to AI images because the author is a soulless machine and the art is generated on a text prompt.
This is solely based on you knowing it's AI art and thus your bias against AI is based on prejudice rather than quality.

>It seems like you are out of your depth and fighting phantoms, you should read a book.

>Start with parmeindes and work your way up to today.
No need for that because most art AI is going to replace is going to be much more mundane, like digital contract work.
Which is basically prompt to image, but by human on computer, rather than computer only.

 No.568962

>>568961
It seems like you just refuse to engage in good faith. Like what possible response could you receive where you wouldn't just ignore what's being said and act like they just said boilerplate.

 No.568963

File: 1673286756573.gif (985.46 KB, 480x261, fewer.gif)


 No.568964

>>568962
OK i'll try my best with this one.

>>568952
>The point is that the "artness" of the art won't be in the generated picture.
>The "image" of the art is not what "contains" the art. it is that which is behind the image that contains the art.
I agree that the "artness" depends a lot on the context and intentions of the artist, especially good art.
But this is no obligate property of art. It can exist just on its own, art from unknown artists has no "lore", we interpret and project what we think is fitting. And that's where I don't understand why AI art is different. We can engage with it like we do with any art that is a standalone piece.
For me, AI art is art. Still, I enjoy human made art and think the beyond paint and canvas adds much to it.

 No.568965


 No.568966

>>568934
It's pretty impressive that it can generate a hand with fingers at all

 No.568967

>>568964
ok whatever retard

 No.568968

>>568383
art isn't very valuable anyways especially when its been reduced to "nice pictures"
digit art isn't art and AI can do it better then people.
Until an AI can paint like Monet its best use is making digital "artists" seethe

 No.568969

>>568968
>digit art isn't art
Langley is dusting off the DeviantArt/Google+ files lol.

 No.568970

>>568968
>Um, it's not art because… well, it just isn't okay?!
Come on, try harder.

 No.568971

File: 1673334044545.mp4 (64.74 MB, 1080x1080, Red Sun.mp4)

I think people are making a mountain out of a molehill. These programs are basically using an algorithm and the internet to create an image basically pulled out of the collective conscious of humanity, or at least the collective conscious of people who post images and artwork to the internet. These AIs have no real creative capacity unto themselves. It's just a tool, like many others.

It's fun to create artwork to the lyrics of songs and see what the AI comes up with. I did it with one of my favorite meme songs here.

 No.568972

>>568971
Those look sick af ngl

 No.568973

>>568959
Most hands have 5 fingers, especially in art.

 No.568974

>>568971
oh my god, do you know what model this is? I must have it.

>These programs are basically using an algorithm and the internet to create an image basically pulled out of the collective conscious of humanity, or at least the collective conscious of people who post images and artwork to the internet. These AIs have no real creative capacity unto themselves. It's just a tool, like many others.


the sad thing about the luddite artists is that the models aren't very creative on their own, as you said, but coupled with a human artist who actually does have artistic talent allows majestic artwork to be created from what is actually in the artist's mind, helped by an approximation of artists' collective effort. It's very socialist.

The computer allows us to manifest a collective unconscious, it gives materiality to what was previously only known in the discipline of metaphysics

 No.568975

>>568971
>Tapping into the collective conscious of humanity is a mole hill
moles are pretty based, anon

 No.568976

>>568975
computers will have a deeper relationship with humanity in the future than even the weird reactionary singularity people think they will.

we are grasping into the nonexistant, false realm of metaphysics and pulling out approximations of abstract concepts using the neural network. of course, this is a massive analogy, philosophical word salad even, of course stable diffusion is based on denoising, tokenizing etc

the neural network, in the future, will accomplish things impossible for us to predict

 No.568977

>>568976
I am in agreement with you, the point is not that some of these paintings have extra fingers or that the chats composed include bullshit. The point is that we are in the liftoff era of this technology and every sign points to it improving at an increasing rate. It is quite exciting ( and at the same time as a fusion lab achieved ignition ) ! Now if they can get a quantum computer working we'll really be in the 21st century.

 No.568978

>>568977
if there is a collective unconciousness, that it's the universe that is concious and we're partitioned sapient parts of it with the same conciousness as one another as in daoism, buddhism etc, then we are achieving the schizo false shit for real via approximations in the computer.

there is no "collective unconscious" that has opinions like Carl Jung thought. it's actually the internet that made that material.

 No.568979

>>568978
Not sure what that has to do with >>568977

 No.568980

>>568979
that
>The point is that we are in the liftoff era of this technology and every sign points to it improving at an increasing rate.
is connected to the concept of computers achieving unthinkable feats in the future, more and moreso having effect on humanity

 No.568981

File: 1673589761696-0.png (1.33 MB, 1024x1024, crimson king v4 1.png)

File: 1673589761696-1.png (1.25 MB, 1024x1024, crimson king v4 2.png)

File: 1673589761696-2.png (1.36 MB, 1024x1024, crimson king v4 3.png)

File: 1673589761696-3.png (1.33 MB, 1024x1024, crimson king v4 4.png)

>>568974
It's Midjourney, but it's specifically Midjourney v3, not the current one. The current version produces much crisper and in some ways higher quality images, but I think its trained on an almost entirely different image set because it now produces images that are drastically different from what it used to produce.

So, for example, here's an example of images produced by the current version (v4)

The prompt is "In the Court of the Crimson King"

 No.568982

>>568977
>every sign points to it improving at an increasing rate
Every sign points to it improving at a decreasing rate.
It's exponential growth in computing power and data for linear gains.

My prediction is that we will see one more solid improvement in AI output, and after that it will more or less stagnate, then it'll be a scramble to actually make it useful for something.

>>568981
I bet they excluded all images currently owned by anyone powerful enough to sue them lol.

 No.568983

File: 1673590258532-0.png (2.3 MB, 1664x1664, crimson king v3 1.png)

File: 1673590258532-1.png (4.3 MB, 1664x1664, crimson king v3 2.png)

File: 1673590258532-2.png (4.67 MB, 1664x1664, crimson king v3 3.png)

File: 1673590258532-3.png (4.21 MB, 1664x1664, crimson king v3 4.png)

>>568974
>>568981
And this is the sort of image it produces on v3. A pretty stark difference.

The prompt was the same as above: "In the Court of the Crimson King"

 No.568984

>>568982
Actually, there's a good case for that. v3 seems to be based much, much more on artwork than v4 is. Maybe they got cold feet when they realized that lots of rich people own said artwork.

 No.568985

File: 1673591431761-0.png (1.46 MB, 1024x1024, old gods v4 1.png)

File: 1673591431761-1.png (1.35 MB, 1024x1024, old gods v4 2.png)

File: 1673591431761-2.png (1.33 MB, 1024x1024, old gods v4 3.png)

File: 1673591431761-3.png (1.4 MB, 1024x1024, old gods v4 4.png)

Here's another example.

Midjourney v4

Prompt: "Rituals to the Old Gods"

 No.568986

File: 1673591612949-0.png (2.87 MB, 1664x1664, old gods v3 1.png)

File: 1673591612949-1.png (2.67 MB, 1664x1664, old gods v3 2.png)

File: 1673591612949-2.png (3.23 MB, 1664x1664, old gods v3 3.png)

File: 1673591612949-3.png (2.88 MB, 1664x1664, old gods v3 4.png)

And Midjourney v3

Prompt: "Rituals to the Old Gods"


Unique IPs: 288

[Return][Go to top] [Catalog] | [Home][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ home / rules / faq ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / siberia / hobby / tech / edu / games / anime / music / draw / AKM ] [ meta / roulette ] [ cytube / wiki / git ] [ GET / ref / marx / booru / zine ]